↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electroconvulsive therapy for the depressed elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
Title
Electroconvulsive therapy for the depressed elderly
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003593
Pubmed ID
Authors

ML Stek, Frits FB Wurff van der, WJG Hoogendijk, ATF Beekman

Abstract

Depressive disorder is a common mental disorder in old age, with serious health consequences such as increased morbidity, disability, and mortality. The frailty of elderly may seriously hamper the efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in depressed elderly. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in depressed elderly therefore may be an alternative to treatment with antidepressants. To assess the efficacy and safety of ECT (compared to simulated ECT or antidepressants) in depressed elderly. We searched the CCDANCTR database, Medline 1966-2000, EMBase 1980-2000, Biological abstracts 1985-2000, Cinahl 1982-2000, Lilacs from 1982 onwards, Psyclit 1887-2000, Sigle 1980-2000. The reference lists of relevant papers were scanned for published reports. Hand searching of the Journal of ECT and the Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry was done. Based on the title of the publication and its abstract, non-eligible citations were excluded. Data were independently extracted by at least two reviewers. Randomised, controlled trials on depressed elderly (> 60 years) with or without concomitant with conditions like cerebrovascular disease, dementia of the Alzheimer's type, vascular dementia or Parkinson's disease were included. Data were independently extracted by at least two reviewers. For continuous data weighted mean differences (WMD) between groups were calculated. Randomised evidence is sparse. Only three trials could be included, one on the efficacy of real ECT versus simulated ECT (O'Leary et al 1994), one on the efficacy of unilateral versus bilateral ECT (Fraser 1980) and the other comparing the efficacy of ECT once a week with ECT three times weekly (Kellner 1992). All had major methodological shortcomings; data were mostly lacking essential information to perform a quantitative analysis. Although the O'Leary study concluded that real ECT was superior over simulated ECT, these conclusions need to be interpreted cautiously. Only results from the second trial (unilateral versus bilateral ECT) could be analysed, not convincingly showing efficacy of unilateral ECT over bilateral ECT, WMD 6.06 (CI -5.20,17.32). Randomised evidence on the efficacy and safety of ECT in depressed elderly with concomitant dementia, cerebrovascular disorders or Parkinson's disease is completely lacking. Possible side-effects could not be adequately examined because the lack of randomised evidence and the methodological shortcomings. None of the objectives of this review could be adequately tested because of the lack of firm, randomised evidence. Given the specific problems in the treatment of depressed elderly, it is of importance to conduct a well designed randomised controlled trial in which the efficacy of ECT is compared to one or more antidepressants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 196 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Student > Master 29 14%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 14 7%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 43 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 41%
Psychology 28 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 50 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 13 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,167,176
of 18,945,734 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,906
of 11,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,408
of 262,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#127
of 478 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,945,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 262,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 478 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.