↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antidepressants for treating depression in adults with end‐stage kidney disease treated with dialysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

19 X users
2 Facebook pages


75 Dimensions

Readers on

383 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Antidepressants for treating depression in adults with end‐stage kidney disease treated with dialysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004541.pub3
Pubmed ID

Suetonia C Palmer, Patrizia Natale, Marinella Ruospo, Valeria M Saglimbene, Kannaiyan S Rabindranath, Jonathan C Craig, Giovanni FM Strippoli


Depression affects approximately one-quarter of people treated with dialysis and is considered an important research uncertainty by patients and health professionals. Treatment for depression in dialysis patients may have different benefits and harms compared to the general population due to different clearances of antidepressant medication and the severity of somatic symptoms associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Guidelines suggest treatment of depression in dialysis patients with pharmacological therapy, preferably a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. This is an update of a review first published in 2005. To evaluate the benefit and harms of antidepressants for treating depression in adults with ESKD treated with dialysis. We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 20 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressant treatment with placebo or no treatment, or compared to another antidepressant medication or psychological intervention in adults with ESKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Data were abstracted by two authors independently onto a standard form and subsequently entered into Review Manager. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Four studies in 170 participants compared antidepressant therapy (fluoxetine, sertraline, citalopram or escitalopram) versus placebo or psychological training for 8 to 12 weeks. In generally very low or ungradeable evidence, compared to placebo, antidepressant therapy had no evidence of benefit on quality of life, had uncertain effects on increasing the risk of hypotension (3 studies, 144 participants: RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.92), headache (2 studies 56 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.57), and sexual dysfunction (2 studies, 101 participants: RR 3.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 23.34), and increased nausea (3 studies, 114 participants: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.68). There were few or no data for hospitalisation, suicide or all-cause mortality resulting in inconclusive evidence. Antidepressant therapy may reduce depression scores during treatment compared to placebo (1 study, 43 participants: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.94 to -3.06). Antidepressant therapy was not statistically different from group psychological therapy for effects on depression scores or withdrawal from treatment and a range of other outcomes were not measured. Despite the high prevalence of depression in dialysis patients and the relative priority that patients place on effective treatments, evidence for antidepressant medication in the dialysis setting is sparse and data are generally inconclusive. The relative benefits and harms of antidepressant therapy in dialysis patients are poorly known and large randomised studies of antidepressants versus placebo are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 383 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 383 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 15%
Student > Bachelor 52 14%
Researcher 35 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 70 18%
Unknown 120 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 11%
Psychology 41 11%
Unspecified 11 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 3%
Other 39 10%
Unknown 135 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 September 2016.
All research outputs
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 348,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 348,593 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.