↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A patient-level meta-analysis of studies evaluating vagus nerve stimulation therapy for treatment-resistant depression

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 303)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
A patient-level meta-analysis of studies evaluating vagus nerve stimulation therapy for treatment-resistant depression
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, March 2013
DOI 10.2147/mder.s41017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott M Berry, Kristine Broglio, Mark Bunker, Amara Jayewardene, Bryan Olin, A John Rush

Abstract

To compare response and remission rates in depressed patients with chronic treatment-resistant depression (TRD) treated with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) Therapy(®) plus treatment as usual (VNS + TAU) or TAU alone in a meta-analysis using Bayesian hierarchical models. Six outpatient, multicenter, clinical trials that have evaluated VNS + TAU or TAU in TRD, including two single-arm studies of VNS + TAU (n = 60 and n = 74), a randomized study of VNS + TAU versus TAU (n = 235), a randomized study of VNS + TAU comparing different VNS stimulation intensities (n = 331), a nonrandomized registry of VNS + TAU versus TAU (n = 636), and a single-arm study of TAU (n = 124) to provide longer-term, control data for comparison with VNS-treated patients. A systematic review of individual patient-level data based on the intent-to-treat principle, including all patients who contributed more than one post-baseline visit. Response was based on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions scale's Improvement subscale (CGI-I), as these were the two clinician-rated measures common across all or most studies. Remission was based on the MADRS. Outcomes were compared from baseline up to 96 weeks of treatment with VNS + TAU (n = 1035) versus TAU (n = 425). The MADRS response rate for VNS + TAU at 12, 24, 48, and 96 weeks were 12%, 18%, 28%, and 32% versus 4%, 7%, 12%, and 14% for TAU. The MADRS remission rate for VNS + TAU at 12, 24, 48, and 96 weeks were 3%, 5%, 10%, and 14% versus 1%, 1%, 2%, and 4%, for TAU. Adjunctive VNS Therapy was associated with a greater likelihood of response (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.12, 4.66) and remission (OR = 4.99, CI: 2.93, 7.76), compared with TAU. For patients who had responded to VNS + TAU at 24 weeks, sustained response was more likely at 48 weeks (OR = 1.98, CI: 1.34, 3.01) and at 96 weeks (OR = 3.42, CI: 1.78, 7.31). Similar results were observed for CGI-I response. For patients with chronic TRD, VNS + TAU has greater response and remission rates that are more likely to persist than TAU.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 134 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 17%
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Master 15 11%
Other 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 27%
Neuroscience 20 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 9%
Psychology 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 38 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 05 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,913,544
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#26
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,887
of 206,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 206,591 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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