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 |
Number of pulses or number of sessions? An open-label study of trajectories of improvement for once-vs. twice-daily dorsomedial prefrontal rTMS in major depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brain Stimulation, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.brs.2017.11.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Schulze, Kfir Feffer, Christopher Lozano, Peter Giacobbe, Zafiris J. Daskalakis, Daniel M. Blumberger, Jonathan Downar |
| Abstract |
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) shows efficacy in the treatment of major depressive episodes (MDEs), but can require ≥4-6 weeks for maximal effect. Recent studies suggest that multiple daily sessions of rTMS can accelerate response without reducing therapeutic efficacy. However, it is unresolved whether therapeutic effects track cumulative number of pulses, or cumulative number of sessions. This open-label study reviewed clinical outcomes over a 20-30 session course of high-frequency bilateral dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC)-rTMS among patients receiving 6000 pulses/day delivered either in twice-daily sessions 80 min apart (at 20 Hz) or single, longer, once-daily sessions (at 10 Hz). A retrospective chart review identified 130 MDD patients who underwent 20-30 daily sessions of bilateral DMPFC-rTMS (Once-daily, n = 65; Twice-daily, n = 65) at a single Canadian clinic. Mixed-effects modeling revealed significantly faster improvement (group-by-time interaction) for twice-daily versus once-daily DMPFC-rTMS. Across both groups, the pace of improvement showed a consistent relationship with number of cumulative sessions, but not with cumulative number of pulses. Although the twice-daily group completed treatment in half as many days, final clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between groups on dichotomous measures (response/remission rates: once-daily, 35.4%/33.8%; twice-daily, 41.5%/35.4%), or continuous measures, or on overall response distribution. Twice-daily rTMS appears feasible, tolerable, and capable of achieving comparable results to once-daily rTMS, while also reducing course length approximately twofold. Therapeutic gains tracked the cumulative number of sessions, not pulses. Future randomized studies comparing once-daily to multiple-daily rTMS sessions, while controlling for number of pulses, may be warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 28% |
| Canada | 3 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Egypt | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 33% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 139 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 31 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 19% |
| Psychology | 11 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 56 | 40% |
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 27 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,409,158
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brain Stimulation
#386
of 2,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,476
of 342,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Stimulation
#10
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 342,928 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.