↓ 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 (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

14 tweeters
1 weibo user
1 Wikipedia page


26 Dimensions

Readers on

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

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


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 14 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 300 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 298 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 22%
Student > Bachelor 42 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Other 35 12%
Unknown 80 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 56 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 13%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 90 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 264,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 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 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 264,354 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 251 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 56% of its contemporaries.