↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
290 Mendeley
Title
Non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005502.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cerian F Jackson, Selina M Makin, Anthony G Marson, Michael Kerr

Abstract

Approximately 30% of patients with epilepsy remain refractory to drug treatment and continue to experience seizures whilst taking one or more antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Several non-pharmacological interventions that may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to AEDs are available for refractory patients. In view of the fact that seizures in people with intellectual disabilities are often complex and refractory to pharmacological interventions, it is evident that good quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to assess the efficacy of alternatives or adjuncts to pharmacological interventions.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review (Beavis 2007) published in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4). To assess data derived from randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.Non-pharmacological interventions include, but are not limited to, the following.• Surgical procedures.• Specialised diets, for example, the ketogenic diet, or vitamin and folic acid supplementation.• Psychological interventions for patients or for patients and carers/parents, for example, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), electroencephalographic (EEG) biofeedback and educational intervention.• Yoga.• Acupuncture.• Relaxation therapy (e.g. music therapy). For the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (19 August 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via CRSO (19 August 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 August 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 19 August 2014). Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted study data. One study is included in this review. When two surgical procedures were compared, results indicated that corpus callosotomy with anterior temporal lobectomy was more effective than anterior temporal lobectomy alone in improving quality of life and performance on IQ tests among people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities. No evidence was found to support superior benefit in seizure control for either intervention. This is the only study of its kind and was rated as having an overall unclear risk of bias. The previous update (December 2010) identified one RCT in progress. The study authors have confirmed that they are aiming to publish by the end of 2015; therefore this study (Bjurulf 2008) has not been included in the current review. This review highlights the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials conducted to assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions on seizure and behavioural outcomes in people with intellectual disabilities and epilepsy.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 287 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 19%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Other 22 8%
Other 52 18%
Unknown 68 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 32%
Psychology 27 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 8%
Neuroscience 13 4%
Unspecified 10 3%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 76 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,207,210
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,881
of 12,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,477
of 267,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 267,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.