↓ Skip to main content

Antiepileptic drugs’ tolerability and safety – a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse effects in dogs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, May 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
154 Mendeley
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.
Title
Antiepileptic drugs’ tolerability and safety – a systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse effects in dogs
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12917-016-0703-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marios Charalambous, Sara K. Shivapour, David C. Brodbelt, Holger A. Volk

Abstract

The safety profile of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) is an important consideration for the regulatory bodies, owners and prescribing clinicians. Information on their adverse effects still remains limited. A systematic review including a meta-analytic approach was designed to evaluate existing evidence for the safety profile of AEDs in canine patients. Electronic searches of PubMed, CAB Direct and Google scholar were carried out without date or language restrictions. Conference proceedings were also searched. Peer-reviewed full-length studies reporting adverse effects of AEDs in epileptic and healthy non-epileptic dogs were included. Studies were allocated to three groups based on their design. Individual studies were evaluated based on the quality of evidence (study design, study group sizes, subject enrolment quality and overall risk of bias) and the outcome measures reported (proportion of specific adverse effects for each AED, prevalence and 95 % confidence interval of the affected population in each study and comparative odds ratio of adverse effects for AEDs). Ninety studies, including six conference proceedings, reporting clinical outcomes of AEDs' adverse effects were identified. Few studies were designed as blinded randomised controlled clinical trials. Many studies included low canine populations with unclear criteria of subject enrolment and short treatment periods. Direct comparisons suggested that imepitoin and levetiracetam might have a better safety profile than phenobarbital, whilst the latter might have a better safety profile than potassium bromide. However, none of these comparisons showed a statistically significant difference. Comparisons between other AEDs were not possible as a considerable amount of studies lacked power calculations or adequate data to allow further statistical analysis. Individual AED assessments indicated that levetiracetam might be one of the safest AEDs, followed by imepitoin and then phenobarbital and potassium bromide; these findings were all supported by a strong level of evidence. The safety profile in other AEDs was variable, but weak evidence was found to permit firm conclusions or to compare their safety to other AEDs. This systematic review provides objective evaluation of the most commonly used AEDs' adverse effects. Adverse effects usually appeared mild in all AEDs and subsided once doses and/or serum levels were monitored or after the AED was withdrawn. Although phenobarbital might be less safe than imepitoin and levetiracetam, there was insufficient evidence to classify it as an AED with a high risk of major adverse effects. It is important for clinicians to evaluate both AEDs' effectiveness and safety on an individual basis before the selection of the appropriate monotherapy or adjunctive AED therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 154 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 153 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 16%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Other 37 24%
Unknown 29 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 76 49%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 32 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 22 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,106,844
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#56
of 2,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,896
of 272,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,534 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 272,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.