↓ Skip to main content

Tobacco smoking and depression: time to move on to a new research paradigm in medicine?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Tobacco smoking and depression: time to move on to a new research paradigm in medicine?
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter de Jonge, Elisabeth Henriette Bos

Abstract

A recent paper published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders reported on a study into whether tobacco smoking may serve as a risk factor for depression in patients with heart disease. In the current paper, we discuss several limitations of that study, of which many apply not just to the study itself but to the nomothetic research design that was used. Particularly when bidirectionality between variables is expected, fluctuation in variables over time takes place, and/or inter-individual differences are considerable, a nomothetic research approach does not seem appropriate, and may lead to false conclusions. As an alternative, we describe an idiographic approach in which individuals are followed up over time using many repeated measurements, and from which individual models are estimated. Such intensive time-series studies are not common in medicine, but are well described in the fields of econometrics and meteorology. Combining idiographic research designs with more traditional nomothetic designs may lead to research findings that are not only useful for society but also valid in individuals. See related research article here http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/13/35.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 5%
New Zealand 1 5%
Unknown 20 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Unspecified 3 14%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#6,347,899
of 12,517,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,581
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,017
of 147,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,134 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 147,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.