Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

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

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·Neurology

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 Patients could be withdrawn for lack of efficacy, adverse events, or noncompliance.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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1212/wnl.51.5.1282

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 205

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.