You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative effectiveness of levetiracetam, valproate and carbamazepine among elderly patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy: subgroup analysis of the randomized, unblinded KOMET study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neurology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12883-016-0663-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bernd Pohlmann-Eden, Anthony G. Marson, Matthias Noack-Rink, Francisco Ramirez, Azita Tofighy, Konrad J. Werhahn, Imane Wild, Eugen Trinka |
| Abstract |
Few clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) as initial monotherapy for elderly patients. This post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from an unblinded, randomized, 52-week superiority study (KOMET) compared the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; patients were randomized to standard AEDs or LEV. The primary endpoint was time to treatment withdrawal. Results are exploratory, since KOMET was not powered for a subgroup analysis by age. Patients (n = 308) were randomized to LEV (n = 48) or VPA-ER (n = 53) in the VPE-ER stratum or to LEV (n = 104) or CBZ-CR (n = 103) in the CBZ-CR stratum. Mean age was 69.6 years, range 60.2-89.9 years (intention-to-treat population n = 307). Time to treatment withdrawal hazard ratio [HR] (95 % confidence interval [CI]) for LEV vs. standard AEDs was 0.44 (0.28-0.67); LEV vs. 0.46 (0.16-1.33); LEV vs. 0.45 (0.28-0.72). Twelve-month withdrawal rates were: LEV vs. standard AEDs, 20.4 vs. 38.7 %; LEV vs. VPA-ER, 10.4 vs. 23.1 %; LEV vs. CBZ-CR, 25.0 vs. 46.6 %. Time to first seizure was similar between LEV and standard AEDs (HR: 0.92, 95 % CI: 0.63-1.35), LEV and VPA-ER (0.77, 0.38-1.56), and LEV and CBZ-CR (1.02, 0.64-1.63). Adverse events were reported by 76.2, 67.3, and 82.5 % of patients for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were 11.3, 10.2, and 35.0 % for LEV, VPA-ER, and CBZ-CR, respectively. Time to treatment withdrawal was longer with LEV compared with standard AEDs. This finding was driven primarly by the result in the CBZ-CR stratum, which in turn was likely due to the more favorable tolerability profile of LEV. Results of this post-hoc analysis suggest that LEV may be a suitable option for initial monotherapy for patients aged ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00175903 ; September 9, 2005. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| North Macedonia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 23 | 28% |
| Unknown | 22 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 31% |
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 30 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,487,741
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,071
of 2,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,194
of 342,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#40
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 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 2,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 342,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.