↓ Skip to main content

Antidepressants for smoking cessation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
227 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
531 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
Antidepressants for smoking cessation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000031.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

John R Hughes, Lindsay F Stead, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Kate Cahill, Tim Lancaster

Abstract

There are at least three reasons to believe antidepressants might help in smoking cessation. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms or precipitate a major depressive episode and antidepressants may relieve these. Secondly, nicotine may have antidepressant effects that maintain smoking, and antidepressants may substitute for this effect. Finally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways (e.g. inhibiting monoamine oxidase) or receptors (e.g. blockade of nicotinic-cholinergic receptors) underlying nicotine addiction.

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 531 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 512 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 91 17%
Student > Master 83 16%
Student > Bachelor 75 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 67 13%
Unspecified 54 10%
Other 161 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 235 44%
Unspecified 79 15%
Psychology 67 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 6%
Social Sciences 29 5%
Other 90 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 06 August 2018.
All research outputs
#354,564
of 13,333,056 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,016
of 10,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,998
of 253,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,333,056 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,563 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 253,500 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 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 90% of its contemporaries.