↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fluoxetine versus other types of pharmacotherapy for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
464 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 464 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 455 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 15%
Student > Bachelor 62 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 9%
Researcher 35 8%
Student > Postgraduate 33 7%
Other 90 19%
Unknown 132 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 26%
Psychology 48 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 5%
Other 71 15%
Unknown 142 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 22 June 2024.
All research outputs
#1,325,612
of 26,173,059 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,640
of 13,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,147
of 193,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 299 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,173,059 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. 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 193,149 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 299 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.