ArticleCore evidence2005
Fosphenytoin for the treatment of status epilepticus: an evidence-based assessment of its clinical and economic outcomes.
Article in Core evidence, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric Seizure Team-based Learning.Journal of education & teaching in emergency medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStatus epilepticus (SE) is a life-threatening condition requiring prompt treatment in the emergency department to control seizures and limit potential neurologic damage. Fosphenytoin is a water-soluble prodrug of phenytoin (an established treatment option for SE) that has been developed to overcome the often severe venous adverse events that can occur following the intravenous administration of phenytoin.
aimsThe objective of this article is to review the evidence for the use of fosphenytoin in the treatment of SE. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Fosphenytoin can be infused more rapidly than phenytoin and there is evidence that therapeutic drug levels are achieved at least at a similar rate. Although few studies have been conducted in SE patients, there is evidence that fosphenytoin is at least as effective as phenytoin in terms of response and control of SE. There is also moderate evidence that there are fewer vascular adverse events following intravenous fosphenytoin compared with phenytoin administration when both drugs are infused at the recommended dosage and rate. Evidence from pharmacoeconomic studies indicates that a reduction in the incidence of adverse events and their subsequent management are critical factors for cost-effectiveness with fosphenytoin. CLINICAL VALUE: In conclusion, fosphenytoin is a valuable treatment option for the rapid treatment of SE; the risk of venous adverse events is lower than with phenytoin when administered at the recommended rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22496677PMC3321654W2178150083What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.