↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
80 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
204 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
729 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004690.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony C James, Georgina James, Felicity A Cowdrey, Angela Soler, Aislinn Choke

Abstract

A previous Cochrane review (James 2005) showed that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders; however, questions remain regarding (1) the relative efficacy of CBT versus non-CBT active treatments; (2) the relative efficacy of CBT versus medication and the combination of CBT and medication versus placebo; and (3) the long-term effects of CBT.  OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) whether CBT is an effective treatment for childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders in comparison with (a) wait-list controls; (b) active non-CBT treatments (i.e. psychological placebo, bibliotherapy and treatment as usual (TAU)); and (c) medication and the combination of medication and CBT versus placebo; and (2) the long-term effects of CBT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 729 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 721 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 143 20%
Student > Bachelor 121 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 71 10%
Researcher 63 9%
Other 113 16%
Unknown 142 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 282 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 122 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 8%
Social Sciences 47 6%
Neuroscience 12 2%
Other 55 8%
Unknown 156 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 07 April 2022.
All research outputs
#513,770
of 21,514,875 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,044
of 12,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,908
of 230,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,514,875 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 230,552 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.