↓ Skip to main content

Folate for depressive disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Folate for depressive disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003390
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew J Taylor, Stuart M Carney, John Geddes, Guy Goodwin

Abstract

There are a number of effective interventions for the treatment of depression. It is possible that the efficacy of these treatments will be improved further by the use of adjunctive therapies such as folate. 1. To determine the effectiveness of folate in the treatment of depression 2. To determine the adverse effects and acceptability of treatment with folate. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) incorporating results of group searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, LILACS, CINAHL, PSYNDEX and PsycLIT were searched. Reference lists of relevant papers and major textbooks of affective disorder were checked. Experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies were contacted regarding unpublished material. All randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with folic acid or 5'-methyltetrahydrofolic acid to an alternative treatment, whether another antidepressant medication or placebo, for patients with a diagnosis of depressive disorder (diagnosed according to explicit criteria). Data were independently extracted from the original reports by two reviewers. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 4.1. Three trials involving 247 people were included. Two studies involving 151 people assessed the use of folate in addition to other treatment, and found that adding folate reduced Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores on average by a further 2.65 points (95% confidence interval 0.38 to 4.93). Fewer patients treated with folate experienced a reduction in their HDRS score of less than 50% at ten weeks (relative risk (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92) The number needed to treat with folate for one additional person to experience a 50% reduction on this scale was 5 (95% confidence interval 4 to 33). One study involving 96 people assessed the use of folate instead of the antidepressant trazodone and did not find a significant benefit from the use of folate. The trials identified did not find evidence of any problems with the acceptability or safety of folate. The limited available evidence suggests folate may have a potential role as a supplement to other treatment for depression. It is currently unclear if this is the case both for people with normal folate levels, and for those with folate deficiency.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Other 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 50%
Psychology 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 12 20%

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 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,246,156
of 12,728,337 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,183
of 10,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,548
of 263,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#106
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,728,337 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 263,731 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.