↓ Skip to main content

Tobacco smoking and depression: time to move on to a new research paradigm in medicine?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Tobacco smoking and depression: time to move on to a new research paradigm in medicine?
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-11-138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter de Jonge, Elisabeth Henriette Bos

Abstract

A recent paper published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders reported on a study into whether tobacco smoking may serve as a risk factor for depression in patients with heart disease. In the current paper, we discuss several limitations of that study, of which many apply not just to the study itself but to the nomothetic research design that was used. Particularly when bidirectionality between variables is expected, fluctuation in variables over time takes place, and/or inter-individual differences are considerable, a nomothetic research approach does not seem appropriate, and may lead to false conclusions. As an alternative, we describe an idiographic approach in which individuals are followed up over time using many repeated measurements, and from which individual models are estimated. Such intensive time-series studies are not common in medicine, but are well described in the fields of econometrics and meteorology. Combining idiographic research designs with more traditional nomothetic designs may lead to research findings that are not only useful for society but also valid in individuals. See related research article here http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/13/35.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 21%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 33%
Psychology 7 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 May 2013.
All research outputs
#14,626,804
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,962
of 3,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,074
of 195,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#56
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 195,245 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.