↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison between neurostimulation techniques rapid transcranial magnetic stimulation vs electroconvulsive therapy for the treatment of resistant depression: patient preference and cost-effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, August 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Comparison between neurostimulation techniques rapid transcranial magnetic stimulation vs electroconvulsive therapy for the treatment of resistant depression: patient preference and cost-effectiveness
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s105654
Pubmed ID
Authors

Racheli Magnezi, Emanuel Aminov, Dikla Shmuel, Merav Dreifuss, Pinhas Dannon

Abstract

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common disorder, widely distributed in the population, and is often associated with severe symptoms and functional impairment. It has been estimated that 30% of MDD patients do not benefit adequately from therapeutic interventions, including pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is generally defined as a failure to achieve remission, despite therapeutic interventions. The most effective treatment alternatives for TRD are hospitalization, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Here we compared the clinical effectiveness of ECT and TMS, including success rates, patient responses, side-effect profiles, and financial worthiness. We found that ECT (P<0.0001) was more effective than TMS (P<0.012) (not statistically significant in group effect) in TRD patients. However, ECT patients reported a higher percentage of side effects (P<0.01) and the TMS treatment scored better in terms of patient preference. The cost benefit of ECT was higher than that of TMS (US$2075 vs US$814). Patient's preferences for treatment could be more intense in the TMS, if the TMS is included in the Health Maintenance Organization's service list. We propose that both of these treatment options should be available in psychiatric wards, thus expanding the therapeutic toolkit for TRD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 20%
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 6 5%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 24%
Neuroscience 16 13%
Psychology 16 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 38 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,793,019
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#68
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,132
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#8
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 381,036 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.