↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Screening and case finding instruments for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Screening and case finding instruments for depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002792.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Gilbody, Allan House, Trevor Sheldon

Abstract

Screening or case finding instruments have been advocated as a simple, quick and inexpensive method to improve detection and management of depression in non-specialist settings, such as primary care and the general hospital. However, screening/case finding is just one of a number of strategies that have been advocated to improve the quality of care for depression. The adoption of this seemingly simple and effective strategy should be underpinned by evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
United Kingdom 5 2%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 234 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 17%
Researcher 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 57 23%
Unknown 49 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 40%
Psychology 33 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 9%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 59 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 May 2020.
All research outputs
#5,147,564
of 19,153,137 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,368
of 11,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,620
of 108,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,153,137 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 108,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.