↓ Skip to main content

Rhodiola rosea versus sertraline for major depressive disorder: A randomized placebo-controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Phytomedicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 2,788)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
28 X users
facebook
29 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors
video
7 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
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.
Title
Rhodiola rosea versus sertraline for major depressive disorder: A randomized placebo-controlled trial
Published in
Phytomedicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.phymed.2015.01.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun J. Mao, Sharon X. Xie, Jarcy Zee, Irene Soeller, Qing S. Li, Kenneth Rockwell, Jay D. Amsterdam

Abstract

We performed a proof of concept trial to evaluate relative safety and efficacy of Rhodiola rosea (R. rosea) versus sertraline for mild to moderate major depressive disorder. We hypothesize that R. rosea would have similar therapeutic effects as sertraline but with less adverse events. Phase II randomized placebo controlled clinical trial. 57 subjects were randomized to 12 weeks of standardized R. rosea extract, sertraline, or placebo. Changes over time in Hamilton Depression Rating (HAM-D), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI/C) scores among groups were examined using mixed-effects models. Modest, albeit statistically non-significant, reductions were observed for HAM-D, BDI, and CGI/C scores for all treatment conditions with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.79, p = 0.28, and p = 0.17, respectively). The decline in HAM-D scores was greater for sertraline (-8.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.7 to -3.6) versus R. rosea (-5.1, 95% CI: -8.8 to -1.3) and placebo (-4.6, 95% CI: -8.6 to -0.6). While the odds of improving (versus placebo) were greater for sertraline (1.90 [0.44-8.20]; odds ratio [95% CI]) than R. rosea (1.39 [0.38-5.04]), more subjects on sertraline reported adverse events (63.2%) than R. rosea (30.0%) or placebo (16.7%) (p = 0.012). Although R. rosea produced less antidepressant effect versus sertraline, it also resulted in significantly fewer adverse events and was better tolerated. These findings suggest that R. rosea, although less effective than sertraline, may possess a more favorable risk to benefit ratio for individuals with mild to moderate depression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 290 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 16%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Master 32 11%
Other 24 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 54 18%
Unknown 85 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 7%
Psychology 13 4%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 99 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 147. 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 16 February 2024.
All research outputs
#280,101
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Phytomedicine
#23
of 2,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,145
of 269,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phytomedicine
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 269,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.