You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Can sleep disturbance in depression predict repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment response?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychiatry Research, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.psychres.2013.04.028 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alex Lowe, Shantha M.W. Rajaratnam, Kate Hoy, John Taffe, Paul B. Fitzgerald |
| Abstract |
Treatment for depression is not effective in all patients and it is therefore important to identify factors that can be used to tailor treatments. One potential factor is insomnia. Several repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) studies have reported on this symptom, however, they did not take into account the presence of hypersomnia or that insomnia was related to their outcome measure. Our aim was to investigate whether baseline sleep disruption was related to rTMS treatment response. We pooled data from four clinical trials using rTMS to treat depression, including 139 subjects in data analysis. Insomnia was measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HamD) sleep questions and hypersomnia from the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). To reduce the possible impact of insomnia on our treatment response outcome we created an adjusted HamD score which omitted sleep items. Sleep disturbances were common in our study: 66% had insomnia and 38% hypersomnia. Using regression analysis with our adjusted HamD score we found no relation between baseline insomnia or hypersomnia and rTMS treatment response. Our data are consistent with previous studies; however, this is the first rTMS study to our knowledge that has attempted to dissociate baseline insomnia from the HamD outcome measure and to report no relationship between hypersomnia and rTMS outcome. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 June 2013.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Psychiatry Research
#1,611
of 7,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,490
of 207,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychiatry Research
#20
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 207,698 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.