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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A systematic review for the antidepressant effects of sleep deprivation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12888-015-0674-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qing Tang, Guangming Li, Anguo Wang, Tao Liu, Shenggang Feng, Zhiwei Guo, Huaping Chen, Bin He, Morgan A. McClure, Jun Ou, Guoqiang Xing, Qiwen Mu |
| Abstract |
Sleep deprivation (SD) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have been commonly used to treat depression. Recent studies suggest that co-therapy with rTMS and SD may produce better therapeutic effects than either therapy alone. Therefore, this study was to review the current findings to determine if rTMS can augment the therapeutic effects of SD on depression. Embase, JSTOR, Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for clinical studies published between January 1985 and March 2015 using the search term "rTMS/repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND sleep deprivation AND depress*". Only randomized and sham-controlled trials (RCTs) involving the combined use of rTMS and SD in depression patients were included in this systematic review. The scores of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were extracted as primary outcome measures. Three RCTs with 72 patients that met the inclusion criteria were included for the systematic review. One of the trials reported skewed data and was described alone. The other two studies, which involved 30 patients in the experimental group (SD + active rTMS) and 22 patients in the control group (SD + sham rTMS), reported normally distributed data. The primary outcome measures showed different results among the three publications: two of which showed great difference between the experimental and the control subjects, and the other one showed non-significant antidepressant effect of rTMS on SD. In addition, two of the included studies reported secondary outcome measures with Clinical Global Impression Rating Scale and a self-reported well-being scale which presented good improvement for the depressive patients in the experiment group when compared with the control. The follow-up assessments in two studies indicated maintained results with the immediate measurements. From this study, an overview of the publications concerning the combined use of rTMS and SD is presented, which provides a direction for future research of therapies for depression. More studies are needed to confirm whether there is an augmentative antidepressant effect of rTMS on SD. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Serbia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 19% |
| Psychology | 17 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 35 | 35% |
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 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,242,087
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#3,059
of 4,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,442
of 281,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#52
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 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 4,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 281,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.