↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Folate for depressive disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Folate for depressive disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J Taylor, Stuart M Carney, John Geddes, Guy Goodwin

Abstract

There are a number of effective interventions for the treatment of depression. It is possible that the efficacy of these treatments will be improved further by the use of adjunctive therapies such as folate. 1. To determine the effectiveness of folate in the treatment of depression 2. To determine the adverse effects and acceptability of treatment with folate. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) incorporating results of group searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, LILACS, CINAHL, PSYNDEX and PsycLIT were searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of affective disorder were checked. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted regarding unpublished material. All randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with folic acid or 5'-methyltetrahydrofolic acid to an alternative treatment, whether another antidepressant medication or placebo, for patients with a diagnosis of depressive disorder (diagnosed according to explicit criteria). Data were independently extracted from the original reports by two reviewers. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 4.1. Three trials involving 247 people were included. Two studies involving 151 people assessed the use of folate in addition to other treatment, and found that adding folate reduced Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores on average by a further 2.65 points (95% confidence interval 0.38 to 4.93). Fewer patients treated with folate experienced a reduction in their HDRS score of less than 50% at ten weeks (relative risk (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92) The number needed to treat with folate for one additional person to experience a 50% reduction on this scale was 5 (95% confidence interval 4 to 33). One study involving 96 people assessed the use of folate instead of the antidepressant trazodone and did not find a significant benefit from the use of folate. The trials identified did not find evidence of any problems with the acceptability or safety of folate. The limited available evidence suggests folate may have a potential role as a supplement to other treatment for depression. It is currently unclear if this is the case both for people with normal folate levels, and for those with folate deficiency.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 114 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 35%
Psychology 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 33 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 October 2022.
All research outputs
#2,842,726
of 23,392,375 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,630
of 12,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,176
of 51,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,392,375 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 12,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 51,302 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 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 71% of its contemporaries.