↓ Skip to main content

The media and intellectuals' response to medical publications: the antidepressants' case

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of General Psychiatry, April 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
The media and intellectuals' response to medical publications: the antidepressants' case
Published in
Annals of General Psychiatry, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1744-859x-12-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantinos N Fountoulakis, Cyril Hoschl, Siegfried Kasper, Juan Lopez-Ibor, Hans-Jürgen Möller

Abstract

During the last decade, there was a debate concerning the true efficacy of antidepressants. Several papers were published in scientific journals, but many articles were also published in the lay press and the internet both by medical scientists and academics from other disciplines or representatives of societies or initiatives. The current paper analyzes the articles authored by three representative opinion makers: one academic in medicine, one academic in philosophical studies, and a representative of an activists' group against the use of antidepressants. All three articles share similar gaps in knowledge and understanding of the scientific data and also are driven by an 'existential-like' ideology. In our opinion, these articles have misinterpreted the scientific data, and they as such may misinform or mislead the general public and policy makers, which could have a potential impact upon public health. It seems that this line of thought represents another aspect of the stigma attached to people suffering from mental illness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Norway 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Professor 4 10%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Psychology 9 23%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 November 2019.
All research outputs
#3,054,496
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Annals of General Psychiatry
#101
of 561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,132
of 211,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of General Psychiatry
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 211,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.