↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2004
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
247 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 Mendeley
Title
Active placebos versus antidepressants for depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2004
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003012.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Moncrieff, Simon Wessely, Rebecca Hardy

Abstract

Although there is a consensus that antidepressants are effective in depression, placebo effects are also thought to be substantial. Side effects of antidepressants may reveal the identity of medication to participants or investigators and thus may bias the results of conventional trials using inert placebos. Using an 'active' placebo which mimics some of the side effects of antidepressants may help to counteract this potential bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Canada 3 1%
Spain 3 1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 243 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 23%
Student > Master 33 12%
Researcher 31 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 9%
Other 61 23%
Unknown 27 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 86 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 82 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 6%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 38 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. 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 16 December 2020.
All research outputs
#130,835
of 17,954,410 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#256
of 11,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#551
of 122,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,954,410 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,789 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 122,286 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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 99% of its contemporaries.