↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after intracranial venous thrombosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures after intracranial venous thrombosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005501.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Price, Albrecht Günther, Joseph SK Kwan

Abstract

Intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) commonly presents with seizures in the acute period, and some people may develop recurrent seizures in the long term. The prophylactic use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for the management of post-ICVT seizures is controversial, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal management of post-ICVT seizures. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review first published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. To assess the effects of AEDs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures related to ICVT.(1) For the question of primary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of seizures in people who have had an ICVT but have not had a seizure.(2) For the question of secondary prevention, we aimed to examine whether AEDs reduce the likelihood of further seizures in people who have had an ICVT and at least one seizure. For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), and MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 onwards) to 20 April 2015, and we checked the reference lists of articles retrieved from the searches. We planned to include all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which participants with a diagnosis of ICVT were assigned to a treatment group (that is, receiving at least one AED) or control group (receiving placebo or no drug). Both review authors independently screened and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. If studies had been included in the review, one review author would have extracted the data and another would have checked the extracted data. No relevant studies were found. There is no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures related to intracranial venous thrombosis. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to inform practice. Since the last version of this review no new studies have been found.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Researcher 11 13%
Other 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 15 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,513,653
of 17,520,458 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,816
of 11,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,895
of 269,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,520,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 269,949 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.