↓ Skip to main content

Citalopram versus other anti-depressive agents for depression

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
309 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
Citalopram versus other anti-depressive agents for depression
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006534.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Cipriani, Marianna Purgato, Toshi A Furukawa, Carlotta Trespidi, Giuseppe Imperadore, Alessandra Signoretti, Rachel Churchill, Norio Watanabe, Corrado Barbui

Abstract

Recent US and UK clinical practice guidelines recommend that second-generation antidepressants should be considered amongst the best first-line options when drug therapy is indicated for a depressive episode. Systematic reviews have already highlighted some differences in efficacy between second-generation antidepressants. Citalopram, one of the first selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) introduced in the market, is one of these antidepressant drugs that clinicians use for routine depression care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Brazil 4 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 297 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 68 22%
Student > Master 59 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 11%
Student > Postgraduate 30 10%
Researcher 28 9%
Other 56 18%
Unknown 35 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 44%
Psychology 31 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 5%
Other 46 15%
Unknown 47 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 09 September 2019.
All research outputs
#990,703
of 14,259,371 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,947
of 10,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,063
of 123,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#21
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. 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 123,200 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.