↓ Skip to main content

Child/Adolescent Anxiety Multimodal Study (CAMS): rationale, design, and methods

Overview of attention for article published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 731)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
43 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
237 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
Child/Adolescent Anxiety Multimodal Study (CAMS): rationale, design, and methods
Published in
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, January 2010
DOI 10.1186/1753-2000-4-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott N Compton, John T Walkup, Anne Marie Albano, John C Piacentini, Boris Birmaher, Joel T Sherrill, Golda S Ginsburg, Moira A Rynn, James T McCracken, Bruce D Waslick, Satish Iyengar, Phillip C Kendall, John S March

Abstract

To present the design, methods, and rationale of the Child/Adolescent Anxiety Multimodal Study (CAMS), a recently completed federally-funded, multi-site, randomized placebo-controlled trial that examined the relative efficacy of cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), sertraline (SRT), and their combination (COMB) against pill placebo (PBO) for the treatment of separation anxiety disorder (SAD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and social phobia (SoP) in children and adolescents.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 231 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 39 16%
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 56 24%
Unknown 41 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 102 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 59 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 379. 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 13 August 2023.
All research outputs
#76,035
of 24,260,998 outputs
Outputs from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#2
of 731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196
of 171,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,260,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 171,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them