↓ Skip to main content

Antidepressants for treating depression in dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 tweeter


135 Dimensions

Readers on

69 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.
Antidepressants for treating depression in dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003944
Pubmed ID

Jatinder Bains, Jacqueline Birks, Tom Dening


The use of antidepressants for patients with dementia accompanied by depressive symptoms is widespread, but their clinical efficacy is uncertain. Many of the individual trials of antidepressants have been too small to provide precise estimates of the moderate benefits that might realistically be expected. Combining the information from all appropriate trials may provide a better estimate of the likely effects of treatment.Objectives To determine whether antidepressants are clinically effective and acceptable for the treatment of patients with depression and also dementia.Search methods The CDCIG Specialized Register was last searched on 27 April 2005. This register contains records from major health care databases and many ongoing trials databases and is updated regularly.Medical information departments of pharmaceutical companies were asked to search their databases for any relevant clinical trials. Where necessary authors of trials were approached with requests for additional information.Selection criteria All relevant unconfounded, double-blind, randomized trials comparing any antidepressant drug with placebo, for patients diagnosed as having dementia and depression, according to established criteria.Data collection and analysis Two reviewers extracted data independently and settled any differences by agreement.Main results There were seven included studies with a total of 1140 subjects of which 769 met inclusion criteria. Four included studies reported sufficiently detailed results to enter into meta-analyses, with a total of 137 subjects. Two of these studies investigated the properties of drugs not commonly used in this population with only two studies (Petracca 2001 and Lyketsos 2003) using the more common selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Lyketsos 2003 produced two significant differences in favour of treatment in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) at 12 weeks and in the psychiatrists' global rating. However, the CSDD was not used in any of the other studies and no statistical differences were found with the other measures used in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of the number of patients suffering at least one adverse event, one event of the nervous system, one event of the gastrointestinal system and one event of dry mouth at 6 to 12 weeks showed a significant difference in favour of placebo. There were no other significant results.Authors' conclusions Available evidence offers weak support to the contention that antidepressants are effective for patients with depression and dementia.However, only four studies are included in the meta-analysis relating to efficacy, and sample sizes are small.Moreover, only two included studies investigated the properties of the more commonly used SSRIs and no studies investigated the properties of newer classes of antidepressants (e.g. selective noradrenergic reuptake inhibitors). This review draws attention to the paucity of research and evidence in this area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 66 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 35%
Psychology 10 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 14 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
of 14,093,553 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 244,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 497 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,093,553 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 244,737 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 497 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.