↓ Skip to main content

Lessons from a pilot and feasibility randomised trial in depression (Blood pressure Rapid Intensive Lowering And Normal Treatment for Mood and cognition in persistent depression (BRILiANT mood study))

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2015
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
5 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
Lessons from a pilot and feasibility randomised trial in depression (Blood pressure Rapid Intensive Lowering And Normal Treatment for Mood and cognition in persistent depression (BRILiANT mood study))
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40814-015-0042-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsty Olsen, Denise Howel, Robert Barber, Gary A. Ford, Peter Gallagher, R. Hamish McAllister-Williams, Jonna Nilsson, John O’Brien, Jennie Parker, Alan Thomas

Abstract

The blood pressure rapid intensive lowering and normal treatment for mood and cognition in persistent depression (BRILiANT mood study) was devised as a pilot study to investigate the feasibility and safety of intensive blood pressure lowering as treatment for persistent mood and cognitive symptoms in older adults with major depressive disorder and to assess the availability of this population for recruitment. In addition, the relationship between reduced blood pressure and the change in cerebral blood flow and mood was to be investigated. A single centre pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT), with two parallel groups of intensive or normal treatment for hypertension, recruiting from primary and secondary care and newspaper advert, with an aim of recruiting 66 participants, was observed in this study. At the end of the recruitment period, in order to explore the reasons for failure to recruit to target, surveys were developed and issued to those involved in recruitment. Recruitment rates were lower than expected which led to the study being expanded to further areas and opened to self-referral via advertisement. However, because of better management of hypertension due to changes in the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework guidelines for blood pressure treatment, few eligible patients were identified and the study closed at the end of the recruitment period, with 13 participants consenting, but 12 failing screening resulting in one recruited participant. Overall, the BRILiANT mood study was found not to be feasible, and results suggest that the expected patient population no longer exists. To overcome such recruitment difficulties, a prompt commencement of a study after funding so no relevant care changes occur might help prevent similar problems in future studies. In addition, self-referral, in this case via advertisement in papers, may be a useful tool to increase response rate. When recruiting in primary care, direct access to primary care databases, in a secure and anonymised way, may enable more effective screening. Ultimately, the BRILiANT mood study was shown not to be feasible; this was a useful conclusion from this pilot study. ISRCTN 64524251; UKCRN Portfolio No: 13284.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Psychology 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Mathematics 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 30%
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 06 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,759,606
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#615
of 1,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,994
of 390,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#10
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 390,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.