↓ Skip to main content

Placebo for depression: we need to improve the quality of scientific information but also reject too simplistic approaches or ideological nihilism

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
21 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Placebo for depression: we need to improve the quality of scientific information but also reject too simplistic approaches or ideological nihilism
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-12-105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Cipriani, John R Geddes

Abstract

The placebo response plays a major role in psychiatry, particularly in depression. A new network meta-analysis investigates whether the effects of placebo vary in studies comparing fluoxetine and venlafaxine, two widely prescribed antidepressants. Even though data from this article indicate that the effects of placebos do not differ, publication bias cannot be ruled out. The authors use their finding to criticise the paradigm of evidence-based medicine, questioning whether there is anything certain in psychiatry and, more precisely, in the field of antidepressant treatment for major depression. This study stimulates the debate about validity of scientific knowledge in medicine and highlights the importance of considering things from a different perspective. However, the authors' view should be considered with caution. As clinicians, we make decisions every day, integrating individual clinical expertise and patients' preferences and values with the best, up-to-date research data. The quality of scientific information must be improved, but we still think that valid conclusions to help clinical practice can be drawn from a critical and cautious use of the best available, if flawed, evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 24%
Student > Bachelor 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 14%
Psychology 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 4 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,338,419
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#936
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,718
of 230,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#17
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 230,424 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.