Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Monotherapy or Poly therapy for Epilepsy?

Reynolds, E. H., Shorvon, S. D.·1981·Epilepsia

Abstract

Summary: Although anticonvulsant polytherapy has been widely and traditionally used in the treatment of epilepsy, there is little evidence of its advantages over monotherapy. It does, however, lead to problems of chronic toxicity, drug interactions, failure to evaluate individual drugs, and sometimes exacerbation of seizures. There are many causes of polytherapy which could be avoided by more careful monitoring and supervision of therapy. Studies in new, previously untreated referrals suggest there is considerable potential for monotherapy. In the event of failure of optimum monotherapy, the value of polytherapy is not yet clear. In chronic patients on polytherapy there may be scope for careful rationalization to two or sometimes one drug, with reduction in chronic toxicity and sometimes improved seizure control. Reduction of therapy, however, may be impossible or hazardous due to withdrawal seizures. Even after successful reduction, seizure control is much less satisfactory than in new referrals. It is easier to avoid polytherapy than to reduce it. There is a need to define more carefully the limits of effective anticonvulsant therapy. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Obgleich die antikonvulsive Polytherapie in der Behandlung der Epilepsie eine lange Geschichte hat und weit verbreitet ist, gibt es wenig Hinweise, daß sie der Monotherapie überlegen ist. Im Gegenteil, sie führt zu den Problemen der chronischen Toxicität, den Interaktionen zwischen verschiedenen Medikamenten, den Schwierigkeiten, ein einziges Medikament beurteilen zu können und manchmal sogar zu einer Exacerbation der Anfälle. Es gibt viele Anlässe zur Polytherapie, die durch sorgfältiges Beobachten und Überwachen der Therapie vermieden werden können. Untersuchungen bei bisher ünbehandelten neu uberwiesenen Patienten lassen vermuten, daß sie ein wesentliches Potential für die Monotherapie darstellen. Für den Fall eines Versagens einer optimal gesteuerten Monotherapie ist der Wert der Polytherapie noch nicht klar zu ersehen. Bei chronisch kranken Patienten unter Polytherapie könnte es das Ziel sein, die Therapie sorgfältig auf 2 oder manchmal 1 Medikament zu rationalisieren, dabei die chronische Toxizität zu vermindern und manchmal die Anfallskontrolle zu verbessern. Eine Verminderung der Therapie kann jedoch wegen Entzugskrämpfen unmöglich oder gefährlich sein. Selbst nach erfolgreicher Reduktion ist die Anfallskontrolle bei diesen Patienten weniger befriedigend als bei neu eingestellten Patienten. Es ist leichter, eine Polytherapie zu vermeiden als zu ihr zurückzufinden. Es besteht weiterhin die Notwendigkeit sorgfäitiger die Grenzen der effektiven antikonvulsiven Therapie zu bestimmen.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1528-1157.1981.tb04327.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Reynolds, E. H., & Shorvon, S. D.
Venue
Epilepsia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1981-02
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
1-10
ISSN
  • 0013-9580 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1167
OpenAlex
W2025125752
Cited by
244
References
0
FWCI
17.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monotherapy or Poly therapy for Epilepsy? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1981.tb04327.x
The paper
Reynolds, E. H., & Shorvon, S. D. (1981). Monotherapy or Poly therapy for Epilepsy? Epilepsia. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1157.1981.tb04327.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.