↓ Skip to main content

A critical review of exercise as a treatment for clinically depressed adults: time to get pragmatic

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neuropsychiatrica, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
A critical review of exercise as a treatment for clinically depressed adults: time to get pragmatic
Published in
Acta Neuropsychiatrica, May 2016
DOI 10.1017/neu.2016.21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felipe Barreto Schuch, Ioannis Dimitrios Morres, Panteleimon Ekkekakis, Simon Rosenbaum, Brendon Stubbs

Abstract

Although considerable evidence supports the efficacy of exercise as an antidepressant treatment, critical reviews informing routine practice and future research directions are scarce. We critically reviewed exercise studies for clinically depressed adults, focussing on the PICOS criteria referred to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study designs. Most studies have not screened their samples for symptom heterogeneity. Also, they have employed heterogeneous exercise interventions and control groups that may lead to an underestimation of the benefits of exercise. In addition, pragmatic trials allowing scalable replication and implementation in routine practice are scarce. Future studies, can consider the research domain criteria as a diagnostic framework, and conduct moderator analyses to identify depressed subgroups with symptomatology and biopsychosocial characteristics associated with differential responses to exercise interventions. The search for biomarkers of the antidepressant responses to exercise should be prioritised. Further, non-physically active comparison groups should be used to minimise treatment cross-overs and thus the underestimation of the effects of exercise interventions. Finally, the use of outcome measures that maintain their validity at low and moderate levels of symptom severity and the development of trials with a pragmatic design are essential. The current evidence base is fraught with methodological considerations that need to be taken into account in order to increase further our understanding on the impact of exercise as medicine in depression. Future research should include moderator analyses, incorporate biomarker assays, use appropriate control and comparison groups, assess outcomes with psychometrically sensitive measures, and prioritise pragmatic trials towards transition to routine practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 16 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Psychology 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 May 2016.
All research outputs
#6,974,497
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neuropsychiatrica
#119
of 465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,613
of 298,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neuropsychiatrica
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 298,934 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.