↓ Skip to main content

Different regimens of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adult patients with depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
Different regimens of intravenous sedatives or hypnotics for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adult patients with depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009763.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lihua Peng, Su Min, Ke Wei, Patrick Ziemann-Gimmel

Abstract

Depression is a common mental disorder. It affects millions of people worldwide and is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be one of the leading causes of disability. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a well-established treatment for severe depression. Intravenous anaesthetic medication is used to minimize subjective unpleasantness and adverse side effects of the induced tonic-clonic seizure. The influence of different anaesthetic medications on the successful reduction of depressive symptoms and adverse effects is unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 206 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 18%
Student > Bachelor 25 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 11%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Other 45 21%
Unknown 42 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 41%
Psychology 22 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 53 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 August 2014.
All research outputs
#3,662,381
of 12,667,610 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,824
of 10,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,925
of 190,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,667,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 190,574 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.