| Title |
Psychosurgery for schizophrenia: history and perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s35823 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matheus Schmidt Soares, Wellingson Silva Paiva, Eda Z Guertzenstein, Robson Luis Amorim, Luca Silveira Bernardo, Jose Francisco Pereira, Erich Talamoni Fonoff, Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira |
| Abstract |
Following the early studies of Moniz and Lima, psychosurgery had considerable scientific credibility until the advent of modern antipsychotics in the mid 1950s. Thereafter, psychosurgery was almost abandoned in large medical centers as a common treatment for schizophrenia, although is still used for some affective and anxiety disorders. We reviewed relevant papers cited in the Medline/Index Medicus, Cochrane, and Scielo databases from 1930 to 2012. In our review of the literature, we show from recent studies that there are still many patients with schizophrenia who have serious deficits even after being treated with current noninvasive therapies. The value of psychosurgery remains controversial. There are no data available to support the use of stereotactic procedures for schizophrenia. Well designed controlled trials are needed to establish the effectiveness of psychosurgery in patients with schizophrenia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 76 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 23% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 27% |
| Psychology | 16 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,564,883
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#525
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,486
of 213,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#6
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 213,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.