↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Care delivery and self management strategies for adults with epilepsy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006244.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter M Bradley, Bruce Lindsay, Nigel Fleeman

Abstract

Researchers have criticised epilepsy care for adults for its lack of impact, stimulating the development of various service models and strategies to respond to perceived inadequacies. To assess the effects of any specialised or dedicated intervention beyond that of usual care in adults with epilepsy. For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (9 December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2013), EMBASE (1988 to June 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to December 2013) and CINAHL (1937 to December 2013). In addition, we contacted experts in the field to seek information on unpublished and ongoing studies, checked the websites of epilepsy organisations and checked the reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials, controlled or matched trials, cohort studies or other prospective studies with a control group, and time series studies. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted all data, and assessed the quality of all included studies. Our review included 18 different studies of 16 separate interventions, which we classified into seven distinct groups. Most of the studies have methodological weaknesses, and many results from other analyses within studies need to be interpreted with caution because of study limitations. Consequently, there is currently limited evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and quality of life in people with epilepsy. It was not possible to combine study results in a meta-analysis because of the heterogeneity of outcomes, study populations, interventions and time scales across the studies. Two intervention types, the specialist epilepsy nurse and self management education, have some evidence of benefit. However, we did not find clear evidence that other service models substantially improve outcomes for adults with epilepsy. It is also possible that benefits are situation specific and may not apply to other settings. These studies included only a small number of service providers whose individual competence or expertise may have had a significant impact on outcomes. At present it is not possible to advocate any single model of service provision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 262 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 19%
Student > Bachelor 42 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 13%
Researcher 22 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 36 14%
Unknown 59 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 19%
Psychology 25 10%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Other 34 13%
Unknown 69 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#9,525,095
of 16,196,981 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,341
of 11,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,004
of 346,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#153
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,196,981 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.