Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17040113›Full record

ReviewDrugs2006

Combination therapy in epilepsy: when and what to use.

Patrick Kwan, Martin J Brodie

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Patrick KwanDivision of Neurology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Martin J Brodie
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CNWestern Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After being regarded as a last resort for over two decades, the role of combination therapy as a treatment strategy for epilepsy is undergoing re-evaluation. This is a result of the growing appreciation that all seizures cannot be controlled by monotherapy in a substantial proportion of patients, and of the development of a range of modern antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), some of which are better tolerated and less prone to complex pharmacokinetic drug interactions than their older counterparts.Robust evidence to guide clinicians on when and how to combine AEDs is lacking, and current practice recommendations are largely empirical. Monotherapy should remain the treatment of choice for newly diagnosed epilepsy. A combination of two AEDs can be considered after failure, resulting from lack of efficacy, of one or two different monotherapy regimens. A few patients will become seizure-free with a combination of three AEDs, but treatment with a combination of four or more is unlikely to be successful. There is some evidence to support a pharmacomechanistic approach to AED combination. Care should be taken to avoid excessive drug load, which is associated with increased toxicity. Bigger and better randomised, controlled studies are needed to determine the optimal time and way to combine AEDs.

Indexed as

Drug Therapy, CombinationAnticonvulsantsDrug SynergismEpilepsyHumansSeizuresTreatment FailureAnticonvulsants

Identifiers

PMID17040113
OpenAlexW2007403037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.