↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Drugs versus placebo for dysthymia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Drugs versus placebo for dysthymia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001130
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lima, M S, Moncrieff, J

Abstract

Dysthymia is a depressive disorder of chronic nature but of less severity than major depression, which depressive symptoms are more or less continuous for at least two years. The aim of this review was to conduct a systematic review of all RCTs comparing drugs and placebo for dysthymia. Electronic searches of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycLIT, Biological Abstracts and LILACS; reference searching; personal communication; conference abstracts; unpublished trials from the pharmaceutical industry; book chapters on the treatment of depression. The inclusion criteria for all randomised controlled trials were that they should focus on the use of drugs versus placebo for dysthymic patients. Exclusion criteria were: non randomised, mixed major depression/ dysthymia (trials not providing separate data) and depression secondary to other disorders (e.g. substance abuse). The reviewers extracted the data independently. In order to achieve an intention-to-treat analysis, when trials failed to report it was assumed that people who died or dropped out had no improvement. Authors of relevant trials were contacted for additional and missing data. Absence of treatment response as defined by authors was the main measure of outcome used. Relative Risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of dichotomous data were calculated with the Random Effects Model. Where possible, number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) were estimated, taking the reciprocal of the absolute risk reduction. Currently the review includes 15 trials. Similar results were obtained in terms of efficacy for different groups of drugs, such as tricyclic (TCA), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI) and other drugs (sulpiride, amineptine, and ritanserin). The pooled RR for absence of treatment response was 0.68 (95% CI 0.59-0.78) for TCA and the NNT was 4.3 (95% CI 3.2-6.5). SSRIs showed similar RR for this outcome: 0.64 (95% CI 0.55-0.74), the NNT being 4.7 (95% CI 3.5-6.9). Concerning MAOIs, the RR was 0.59 (95% CI 0.48-0.71) and the NNT was 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-4.3). Other drugs (amisulpride, amineptine and ritanserin) showed similar results in terms of absence of treatment response. Using more stringent criteria for improvement - full remission - the results were unchanged. Patients treated on TCA were more likely to report adverse events, compared with placebo. Drugs are effective in the treatment of dysthymia with no differences between and within class of drugs. Tricyclic antidepressants are more likely to cause adverse events and dropouts. As dysthymia is a chronic condition, there remains little information on quality of life and medium or long-term outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 9 28%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 38%
Psychology 8 25%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 March 2012.
All research outputs
#1,736,683
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,167
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,042
of 258,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 258,730 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 451 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 62% of its contemporaries.