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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The History and Future of Ablative Neurosurgery for Major Depressive Disorder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000478025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew Volpini, Peter Giacobbe, G. Rees Cosgrove, Anthony Levitt, Andres M. Lozano, Nir Lipsman |
| Abstract |
There is an urgent need to develop safe and effective treatments for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Several neurosurgical procedures have been developed to treat the dysfunctional brain circuits implicated in major depression. This review describes the most common ablative procedures used to treat major depressive disorder: anterior cingulotomy, subcaudate tractotomy, limbic leucotomy, and anterior capsulotomy. The efficacy and safety of each are discussed and compared with other current and emerging modalities, including deep brain stimulation (DBS) and MR-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS). The PubMed and MEDLINE electronic databases were used in this study, through July 2016. Keywords, including "treatment resistant depression," and "ablative neurosurgery," etc. were used to generate reference hits. Approximately a third to half of patients who underwent ablative procedures achieved a treatment response and/or remission. The efficacy and safety profiles corresponding to both ablative procedures and DBS were very similar. The longitudinal experience with ablative procedures shows that there remains an important role for accurate, discrete lesions in disrupting affective circuitry in the treatment of TRD. New modalities, such as MRgFUS, have the potential to further improve the accuracy of ablative procedures, while enhancing safety by obviating the need for open brain surgery. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 23 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 17% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 30 | 38% |
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 22 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,470,944
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery
#511
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,134
of 315,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 315,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.