The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A double-blind trial of gabapentin monotherapy for newly diagnosed partial seizures
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is widely approved as add-on therapy for epilepsy treatment for partial seizures with and without secondary generalization. To investigate the efficacy of gabapentin administered as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy, a randomized double-blind trial was performed. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to receive one of three masked doses of gabapentin (300, 900, or 1,800 mg/day) or open-label carbamazepine (600 mg/day) and kept daily seizure diaries throughout the study. After titration, patients entered a 24-week evaluation phase. Patients were required to exit the study if they experienced an exit event, defined as a total of three simple or complex partial seizures, one generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizure, or status epilepticus. Patients could be withdrawn for lack of efficacy, adverse events, or noncompliance. Kaplan-Meier statistics were used to estimate the probability that patients would continue in the study without having an exit event. RESULTS: Time to exit event was longer for patients on 900 mg/day (n = 72) or 1,800 mg/day (n = 74) of gabapentin than for patients receiving 300 mg/day (n = 72; p = 0.0395 and 0.0175, respectively). The most clinically relevant measure of retention on treatment (exit event plus adverse event withdrawal rate) was similar for carbamazepine (n = 74) and 1,800 mg/day gabapentin (54% versus 57%) but was lower (better) for 900 mg/day gabapentin (44%). No unexpected new adverse events emerged with gabapentin monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentin at 900 or 1,800 mg/day is effective and safe as monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed partial epilepsy.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods: Fig 1
Jones, B., Jarvis, P., Lewis, J. A., & Ebbutt, A. F. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7048.36 · Cited by 1,032
Cited by
Marson, A. G., Al-Kharusi, A. M., Alwaidh, M., Appleton, R., Baker, G. A., Chadwick, D. W., Cramp, C., Cockerell, O. C., Cooper, P. N., Doughty, J., et al. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60460-7 · Cited by 976
Self-citationComparison of levetiracetam and controlled-release carbamazepine in newly diagnosed epilepsy
Brodie, M. J., Perucca, E., Ryvlin, P., Ben-Menachem, E., & Meencke, H.-J. (2007) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000252941.50833.4a · Cited by 467
Metadata
- Authors
- Chadwick, D. W., Anhut, H., Greiner, M. J., Alexander, J., Murray, G. H., Garofalo, E. A., Pierce, M. W., & The International Gabapentin Monotherapy Study Group 945-77
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1282-1288
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W1983021024
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.43
- 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: A double-blind trial of gabapentin monotherapy for newly diagnosed partial seizures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.51.5.1282
- The paper
- Chadwick, D. W., Anhut, H., Greiner, M. J., Alexander, J., Murray, G. H., Garofalo, E. A., Pierce, M. W., & The International Gabapentin Monotherapy Study Group 945-77. (1998). A double-blind trial of gabapentin monotherapy for newly diagnosed partial seizures. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.51.5.1282
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.