↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
70 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
459 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
Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004690.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony C James, Georgina James, Felicity A Cowdrey, Angela Soler, Aislinn Choke

Abstract

A previous Cochrane review (James 2005) showed that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was effective in treating childhood anxiety disorders; however, questions remain regarding (1) the relative efficacy of CBT versus non-CBT active treatments; (2) the relative efficacy of CBT versus medication and the combination of CBT and medication versus placebo; and (3) the long-term effects of CBT.  OBJECTIVES: To examine (1) whether CBT is an effective treatment for childhood and adolescent anxiety disorders in comparison with (a) wait-list controls; (b) active non-CBT treatments (i.e. psychological placebo, bibliotherapy and treatment as usual (TAU)); and (c) medication and the combination of medication and CBT versus placebo; and (2) the long-term effects of CBT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 459 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 445 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 97 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 16%
Student > Bachelor 72 16%
Researcher 58 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 56 12%
Other 103 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 229 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 98 21%
Social Sciences 44 10%
Unspecified 34 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 4%
Other 35 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#271,118
of 12,363,249 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#649
of 8,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,272
of 223,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,363,249 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 8,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 223,183 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 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.