↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive-behavioral therapy vs. light therapy for preventing winter depression recurrence: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Cognitive-behavioral therapy vs. light therapy for preventing winter depression recurrence: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-82
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly J Rohan, Maggie Evans, Jennifer N Mahon, Lilya Sitnikov, Sheau-Yan Ho, Yael I Nillni, Teodor T Postolache, Pamela M Vacek

Abstract

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a subtype of recurrent depression involving major depressive episodes during the fall and/or winter months that remit in the spring. The central public health challenge in the management of SAD is prevention of winter depression recurrence. Light therapy (LT) is the established and best available acute SAD treatment. However, long-term compliance with daily LT from first symptom through spontaneous springtime remission every fall/winter season is poor. Time-limited alternative treatments with effects that endure beyond the cessation of acute treatment are needed to prevent the annual recurrence of SAD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 17%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 23 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 21 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,158,712
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#14
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,357
of 292,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#4
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one scored the same or higher as 31 of them.
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 292,078 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 93% of its contemporaries.