ReviewCNS drugs2018
Newer Antiepileptic Drugs for Status Epilepticus in Adults: What's the Evidence?
Review in CNS drugs, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
- Critical Care Management of Patients After Cardiac Arrest: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Neurocritical Care Society.Circulation · 2024Review
- Article
- Treatment of established status epilepticus in the elderly - a study protocol for a prospective multicenter double-blind comparative effectiveness trial (ToSEE).BMC neurology · 2020Article
- Status epilepticus - time is brain and treatment considerations.Current opinion in critical care · 2019Review
- [Management of refractory and super-refractory status epilepticus].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2019Review
- Use of Emergency Medication in Adult Patients with Epilepsy: A Multicentre Cohort Study from Germany.CNS drugs · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Status epilepticus (SE) is one of the most frequent neurological emergencies. Despite this, understanding of its pathophysiology and evidence regarding its management is limited. Rapid, effective, and well-tolerated treatment to achieve seizure cessation is advocated to prevent brain damage or potentially lethal outcomes. The last two decades have witnessed an exponential increase in the number of available antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). These compounds, especially lacosamide and levetiracetam, in view of their intravenous formulation, have been increasingly prescribed in SE. These and other newer AEDs present a promising profile in terms of tolerability, with few centrally depressive effects, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and fewer drug interactions than classical AEDs; conversely, they are more expensive. There is still no clear evidence to suggest a specific beneficial impact of newer AEDs on SE outcome, preventing any strong recommendation regarding their prescription in SE. Further comparative studies are urgently required to clarify their place and optimal use in the armamentarium of SE treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.