↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
Antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010247.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjay Pandey, Chaturbhuj Rathore, Benedict D Michael

Abstract

Viral encephalitis is characterised by diverse clinical and epidemiological features. Seizures are an important clinical manifestation and are associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Patients may have seizures during the acute illness or they may develop after recovery. There are no recommendations regarding the use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures in patients with viral encephalitis.This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10. To assess the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of seizures in viral encephalitis. We had intended to answer the following questions.1. Do antiepileptic drugs used routinely as primary prophylaxis for all patients with suspected or proven viral encephalitis reduce the risk of seizures during the acute illness and reduce neurological morbidity and mortality?2. Do antiepileptic drugs used routinely as secondary prophylaxis for all patients who have had at least one seizure due to suspected or proven viral encephalitis reduce the risk of further seizures during the acute illness and reduce neurological morbidity and mortality? For the latest version of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (11 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 11 April 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid 1946 to 11 April 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 11 April 2016), and ClinicalTrials.gov (11 April 2016). We did not impose any language restrictions. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which patients were assigned to a treatment or control group (placebo or no drug). One review author (SP) searched the publications by title, abstract and keywords, and decided on their suitability for the review. For any studies where their suitability was unclear, the co-authors (CR, BM) were consulted. The co-authors (CR, BM) independently evaluated the selected studies. Since there were no included studies, we carried out no data analysis. We did not find any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of antiepileptic drugs with placebo (or no drug) for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis. We identified two studies from the literature search where different antiepileptic drugs were used in patients with viral encephalitis, however both failed to meet the inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the routine use of antiepileptic drugs for the primary or secondary prevention of seizures in viral encephalitis. There is a need for adequately powered randomised controlled trials in patients with viral encephalitis to assess the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of seizures, which is an important clinical problem.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 142 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 6 4%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 37 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 46 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 December 2018.
All research outputs
#7,513,657
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,962
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,911
of 349,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 277 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 349,303 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 277 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.