| Title |
Isn’t the efficacy of antidepressants clinically relevant? A critical comment on the results of the metaanalysis by Kirsch et al. 2008
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00406-008-0836-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hans Jürgen Möller |
| Abstract |
The metaanalysis of Kirsch (PLoS Med 5:e45, 2008) has (unfortunately!) attracted too much attention in the specialized press and especially in the lay press. Therefore, intensive critical commenting is necessary to not further alarm experts and health authorities as well as patients and family members. The specified commenting on these metaanalyses shall be prefaced with a short and critical commentary regarding the general significance of metaanalyses. The results of metaanalyses should not too naively be interpreted as the 'truth' as regards to the evidence based psychopharmacotherapy, but should be qualified in their significance due to principal methodological reasons Maier (Nervenarzt 78:1028-1036, 2007; Möller (Nervenarzt 78:1014-1027, 2007). Especially from these derived effect sizes should be interpreted carefully. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 26% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 43% |
| Psychology | 9 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 February 2017.
All research outputs
#19,979,391
of 24,552,012 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#1,316
of 1,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,781
of 175,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,552,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 175,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.