↓ Skip to main content

Antidepressants versus placebo for the depressed elderly

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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 versus placebo for the depressed elderly
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000561
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth Wilson, Patricia G Mottram, Anushta Sivananthan, A Nightingale

Abstract

Depression warranting intervention is found in ten percent of people over the age of 60. Older depressed people are more likely to die than non-depressed. Relatively few receive therapeutic interventions, and those that do, tend to receive low dose antidepressant therapy. Depression in older people is thought to differ in terms of aetiology, presentation, treatment and outcome than in younger people. Concomitant physical illness and increasing social, physical and neurophysiological diversity are associated with the ageing process. Consequently drug treatment of older patients is often carried out in institutions and on patients suffering from multiple physical problems. To determine the efficacy of antidepressant medication compared with placebo in the treatment of depression in older patients. The search strategy incorporated: electronic literature searches of databases held by the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDAN) (see Collaborative Review Group Search Strategy). Reference lists of related reviews and references of located studies. Contact was made with authors working in the field. All randomised, placebo controlled trials using antidepressants in the treatment of the presenting episode of depression in patients described as elderly, geriatric senile or older adult. Two types of data were extracted (if available) from each study. The first type of data was dichotomous data, this consisted of recovered/not recovered. The second, continuous data,included: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Montgomery-Asberg Rating Scale (MADRS) and other depression rating scale scores. An analysis using Peto Odds ratios for the dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous data was performed using RevMan 3.1. The presence of heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed. Seventeen trials contributed data to the analyses comparing the efficacy of antidepressant treatment and placebo. Analyses of efficacy was based on 245 patients treated with TCAs (223 with placebo), 365 patients treated with SSRIs (372 with placebo) and 58 patients treated with MAOIs (63 with placebo). The standardised effect size for the three groups respectively were: TCAs; OR: 0.32 (0.21,0.47), SSRIs; OR; 0.51 (0.36,0.72), MAOIs: 0.17 (0.07,0.39). TCAs, SSRIs and MAOIs are effective in the treatment of older community patients and inpatients likely to have severe physical illness. At least six weeks of antidepressant treatment is recommended to achieve optimal therapeutic effect. There is little evidence concerning the efficacy of low dose TCA treatment. Further trials are required before low dose TCA treatment is routinely recommended.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 133 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 42 30%
Unknown 16 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 41%
Psychology 19 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 19 13%

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 11 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,746,379
of 12,793,889 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,891
of 10,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,302
of 190,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#147
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,793,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,430 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 190,063 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.