| Title |
Measurement Methods of BDNF Levels in Major Depression: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychiatric Quarterly, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11126-013-9261-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefania Pigatto Teche, Gabriela Lotin Nuernberg, Anne Orgler Sordi, Lívia Hartmann de Souza, Lysa Remy, Keila Maria Mendes Ceresér, Neusa Sica Rocha |
| Abstract |
There is evidence that the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has implications for the pathophysiology of major depressive disorders (MDD). Measures of BDNF levels are highly dependent on the methodologies used and these vary among different studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to carry out a descriptive analysis of the methodologies used to measure BDNF in clinical trials (CT) in patients with the diagnosis of major depression. We conducted a qualitative systematic review of CT that included samples of subjects diagnosed with major depression and evaluated the BDNF levels as an outcome. The search was performed on Pubmed, Scielo, Psychinfo and Lilacs. The selected articles were analyzed according to the CONSORT Statement and their methods of BDNF collection and analysis were described. Twenty-eight studies were included in the final analysis. Of those, 6 trials (21.4%) involved non-pharmacological interventions and only half had the MDD diagnosis based on structured interview. Trials used different methods to evaluate BDNF levels: most of them verified serum BDNF levels, 17 (60.7%) trials mentioned that measured BDNF levels in duplicate and 9 (32.1%) collected blood in fasting. A variety of methods for BDNF collection and analysis was used in the different studies, making it difficult to compare results. However, despite of the methodology, BDNF seems to increase after treatment for major depression. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 34% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 8% |
| Psychology | 7 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#7,741,906
of 23,543,207 outputs
Outputs from Psychiatric Quarterly
#224
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,005
of 200,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychiatric Quarterly
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,543,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 200,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.