↓ Skip to main content

Tryptophan and 5-Hydroxytryptophan for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
20 tweeters
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Tryptophan and 5-Hydroxytryptophan for depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003198
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelly A Shaw, Jane Turner, Chris Del Mar

Abstract

5 Hydroxytryptophan (5-HTP) and tryptophan are so-called natural alternatives to traditional antidepressants, used to treat unipolar depression and dysthymia. To determine whether 5-HTP and tryptophan are more effective than placebo, and whether they are safe to use to treat depressive disorders in adults. Trials were searched in computerized general (Medline, Psychlit, and Embase) and specialized databases (Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trial Register); by checking reference lists of relevant articles; by handsearching relevant specialist journals; and by contacting relevant authors where appropriate. Publications in all languages were sought. Trials were included if they were randomized, included patients with unipolar depression or dysthymia, compared preparations of 5-HTP or tryptophan with placebo, and included clinical outcomes assessed by scales assessing depressive symptoms. Data was extracted independently by the three reviewers, onto data collection forms. Inclusion criteria were applied to all potential studies independently and a coefficient of agreement (Kappa) was calculated for them. Disagreement was resolved by reaching consensus. Trial quality was scored according to risk of bias. Analysis for 5-HTP and tryptophan were combined due to the small number of included trials. 108 trials were located using the specified search strategy. Of these, only two trials, involving a total of 64 patients, were of sufficient quality to meet inclusion criteria. The available evidence suggests these substances were better than placebo at alleviating depression (Peto Odds Ratio 4.10; 95% confidence interval 1.28-13.15; RD 0.36; NNT 2.78). However, the evidence was of insufficient quality to be conclusive. A large number of studies appear to address the research questions, but few are of sufficient quality to be reliable. Available evidence does suggest these substances are better than placebo at alleviating depression. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 5-HTP and tryptophan before their widespread use can be recommended. The possible association between these substances and the potentially fatal Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome has not been elucidated. Because alternative antidepressants exist which have been proven to be effective and safe the clinical usefulness of 5-HTP and tryptophan is limited at present.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 138 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 24%
Researcher 25 18%
Student > Master 19 13%
Other 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 13 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 9%
Psychology 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 29 21%
Unknown 20 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 03 June 2020.
All research outputs
#242,058
of 15,455,028 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#535
of 11,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,086
of 98,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,455,028 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 98,479 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 96% of its contemporaries.