| Title |
Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004185.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura R Magni, Marianna Purgato, Chiara Gastaldon, Davide Papola, Toshi A Furukawa, Andrea Cipriani, Corrado Barbui |
| Abstract |
Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 448 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Germany | 3 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 439 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 70 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 62 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 9% |
| Researcher | 35 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 33 | 7% |
| Other | 81 | 18% |
| Unknown | 127 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 119 | 27% |
| Psychology | 48 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 22 | 5% |
| Other | 61 | 14% |
| Unknown | 136 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,279,581
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,670
of 13,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,025
of 195,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 195,554 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 303 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.