↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treatments for delusional disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
328 Mendeley
Title
Treatments for delusional disorder
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009785.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike Skelton, Waqqas Ahmad Khokhar, Simon P Thacker

Abstract

Delusional disorder is commonly considered to be difficult to treat. Antipsychotic medications are frequently used and there is growing interest in a potential role for psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in the treatment of delusional disorder. To evaluate the effectiveness of medication (antipsychotic medication, antidepressants, mood stabilisers) and psychotherapy, in comparison with placebo in delusional disorder. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012). Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating treatments in delusional disorder. All review authors extracted data independently for the one eligible trial. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis with a fixed-effect model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again with a fixed-effect model. We assessed the risk of bias of the included study and used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence. Only one randomised trial met our inclusion criteria, despite our initial search yielding 141 citations. This was a small study, with 17 people completing a trial comparing CBT to an attention placebo (supportive psychotherapy) for people with delusional disorder. Most participants were already taking medication and this was continued during the trial. We were not able to include any randomised trials on medications of any type due to poor data reporting, which left us with no usable data for these trials. For the included study, usable data were limited, risk of bias varied and the numbers involved were small, making interpretation of data difficult. In particular there were no data on outcomes such as global state and behaviour, nor any information on possible adverse effects.A positive effect for CBT was found for social self esteem using the Social Self-Esteem Inventory (1 RCT, n = 17, MD 30.5, CI 7.51 to 53.49, very low quality evidence), however this is only a measure of self worth in social situations and may thus not be well correlated to social function. More people left the study early if they were in the supportive psychotherapy group with 6/12 leaving early compared to 1/6 from the CBT group, but the difference was not significant (1 RCT, n = 17, RR 0.17, CI 0.02 to 1.18, moderate quality evidence). For mental state outcomes the results were skewed making interpretation difficult, especially given the small sample. Despite international recognition of this disorder in psychiatric classification systems such as ICD-10 and DSM-5, there is a paucity of high quality randomised trials on delusional disorder. There is currently insufficient evidence to make evidence-based recommendations for treatments of any type for people with delusional disorder. The limited evidence that we found is not generalisable to the population of people with delusional disorder. Until further evidence is found, it seems reasonable to offer treatments which have efficacy in other psychotic disorders. Further research is needed in this area and could be enhanced in two ways: firstly, by conducting randomised trials specifically for people with delusional disorder and, secondly, by high quality reporting of results for people with delusional disorder who are often recruited into larger studies for people with a variety of psychoses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 328 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 326 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 67 20%
Student > Master 40 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 6%
Other 59 18%
Unknown 90 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 27%
Psychology 85 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 95 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 08 December 2022.
All research outputs
#413,796
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#758
of 12,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,030
of 267,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,320 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 267,719 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 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 92% of its contemporaries.