↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Comprehensive review of visual defects reported with topiramate

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Comprehensive review of visual defects reported with topiramate
Published in
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/opth.s125768
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Ford, Jeffrey Goldberg, Fred Selan, Howard Greenberg, Yingqi Shi

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze clinical patterns of visual field defects (VFDs) reported with topiramate treatment and assess possible mechanism of action (MOA) for antiepileptic drug (AED) associated VFDs. A comprehensive topiramate database review included preclinical data, sponsor's clinical trials database, postmarketing spontaneous reports, and medical literature. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) suggestive of retinal dysfunction/damage were summarized. Relative risk (RR) was computed from topiramate double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (DBPCTs) data. Preclinical studies and medical literature review suggested that despite sharing gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic MOA with other AEDs, topiramate treatment was not associated with VFDs. TEAEs suggestive of retinal dysfunction/damage were observed in 0.3%-0.7% of adults and pediatric patients with topiramate (N=4,679) versus ≤0.1% with placebo (N=1,834) in DBPCTs for approved indications (epilepsy and migraine prophylaxis); open-label trials (OLTs) and DBPCTs for investigational indications had similar incidence. Overall, 88% TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Serious TEAEs were very rare (DBPCTs: 0%; OLTs: ≤0.1%), and most were not treatment limiting, and resolved. The most common visual TEAEs (approved indications) were VFD, scotoma, and optic atrophy. The incidence of TEAEs in DBPCTs (approved and investigational indications) was higher in topiramate-treated (N=9,169) versus placebo-treated patients (N=5,023; 0.36% vs 0.24%), but the RR versus placebo-treated patients was not significant (RR: 1.51 [95% confidence interval: 0.78, 2.91]). VFDs do not appear to be a class effect for AEDs with GABA-ergic MOA. The RR for VFDs is not significantly different between topiramate and placebo treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 19%

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 07 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,530,782
of 12,488,808 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#655
of 1,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,818
of 265,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,488,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,597 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 265,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.