↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Supportive therapy for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
weibo
1 weibo user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
Title
Supportive therapy for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004716.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy A Buckley, Nicola Maayan, Karla Soares-Weiser, Clive E Adams

Abstract

Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments. To review the effects of supportive therapy compared with standard care, or other treatments in addition to standard care for people with schizophrenia. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (November 2012). All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care. We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) fixed-effect with 95% CIs. We estimated heterogeneity (I(2) technique) and publication bias. We used GRADE to rate quality of evidence. Four new trials were added after the 2012 search. The review now includes 24 relevant studies, with 2126 participants. Overall, the evidence was very low quality.We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes of relapse, hospitalisation and general functioning between supportive therapy and standard care.There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (4 RCTs, n = 306, RR 1.82 CI 1.11 to 2.99, very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement in mental state (3 RCTs, n = 194, RR 1.27 CI 1.04 to 1.54, very low quality of evidence) and satisfaction of treatment for the recipient of care (1 RCT, n = 45, RR 3.19 CI 1.01 to 10.7, very low quality of evidence). For this comparison, we found no evidence of significant differences for rate of relapse, leaving the study early and quality of life.When we compared supportive therapy to cognitive behavioural therapy CBT), we again found no significant differences in primary outcomes. There were very limited data to compare supportive therapy with family therapy and psychoeducation, and no studies provided data regarding clinically important change in general functioning, one of our primary outcomes of interest. There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies where we graded the evidence as very low quality. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 254 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 23%
Student > Bachelor 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 52 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 59 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 53 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 13%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 63 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 28 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,786,944
of 17,913,039 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,275
of 11,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,675
of 241,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,913,039 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 241,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 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 57% of its contemporaries.