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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Treatment of anxiety disorders in clinical practice: a critical overview of recent systematic evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinics, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.6061/clinics/2019/e1316 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vitor Iglesias Mangolini, Laura Helena Andrade, Francisco Lotufo-Neto, Yuan-Pang Wang |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to review emerging evidence of novel treatments for anxiety disorders. We searched PubMed and EMBASE for evidence-based therapeutic alternatives for anxiety disorders in adults, covering the past five years. Eligible articles were systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis), which evaluated treatment effectiveness of either nonbiological or biological interventions for anxiety disorders. Retrieved articles were summarized as an overview. We assessed methods, quality of evidence, and risk of bias of the articles. Nineteen systematic reviews provided information on almost 88 thousand participants, distributed across 811 clinical trials. Regarding the interventions, 11 reviews investigated psychological or nonbiological treatments; 5, pharmacological or biological; and 3, more than one type of active intervention. Computer-delivered psychological interventions were helpful for treating anxiety of low-to-moderate intensity, but the therapist-oriented approaches had greater results. Recommendations for regular exercise, mindfulness, yoga, and safety behaviors were applicable to anxiety. Transcranial magnetic stimulation, medication augmentation, and new pharmacological agents (vortioxetine) presented inconclusive benefits in patients with anxiety disorders who presented partial responses or refractoriness to standard treatment. New treatment options for anxiety disorders should only be provided to the community after a thorough examination of their efficacy. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 141 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 65 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 8% |
| Unknown | 68 | 48% |
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 20 November 2019.
All research outputs
#22,771,990
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#1,001
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#322,402
of 375,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 375,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.