| Title |
Potential problems and recommendations regarding substitution of generic antiepileptic drugs: a systematic review of literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1824-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muhammad Atif, Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Rehan Sarwar |
| Abstract |
Despite the availability of generic antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), still patients and neurologists hesitate to make a switch due to assorted reasons. The objectives of this review were to evaluate the risks associated with the generic substitution of AEDs. In this context, we also summarized the recommendations of various international societies to treat epileptic patients. We used a number of electronic databases to identify the relevant published studies which demonstrated the potential problems and recommendations regarding generic substitution of AEDs. Of 204 articles found initially, 153 were selected for additional review. Subsequently, 68 articles were finally selected. This review concluded that potential problems linked with the generic substitution of AEDs could be bioequivalence issues, failure of drug therapy, emergence of adverse events and increase in the frequency of seizures. The reasons could be the pharmacokinetics properties of AEDs and unique characteristics of some epilepsy patients. Consequently, the generic substitution of AEDs affects the successful treatment and quality of life of the patients. Various guidelines recommend the well-controlled epileptic patients to avoid switching from brand-to-generic products, generic-to-brand products or generic to some other generic products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,127,191
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#187
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,719
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#13
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 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 91% of its contemporaries.