↓ Skip to main content

Agomelatine versus other antidepressive agents for major depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 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
Agomelatine versus other antidepressive agents for major depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008851.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Guaiana, Sumeet Gupta, Debbie Chiodo, Simon JC Davies, Katja Haederle, Markus Koesters

Abstract

Major depressive disorder (MDD), or depression, is a syndrome characterised by a number of behavioural, cognitive and emotional features. It is most commonly associated with a sad or depressed mood, a reduced capacity to feel pleasure, feelings of hopelessness, loss of energy, altered sleep patterns, weight fluctuations, difficulty in concentrating and suicidal ideation. There is a need for more effective and better tolerated antidepressants to combat this condition. Agomelatine was recently added to the list of available antidepressant drugs; it is a novel antidepressant that works on melatonergic (MT1 and MT2), 5-HT 2B and 5-HT2C receptors. Because the mechanism of action is claimed to be novel, it may provide a useful, alternative pharmacological strategy to existing antidepressant drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 218 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 23%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Unspecified 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Other 73 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 41%
Unspecified 36 16%
Psychology 28 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Other 39 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 October 2017.
All research outputs
#541,779
of 13,045,091 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,761
of 10,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,314
of 216,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,045,091 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 10,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 216,593 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.