ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Indices of Change, Expectations, and Popularity of Biological Treatments for Major Depressive Disorder between 1988 and 2017: A Scientometric Analysis.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and adverse effects of ketamine versus electroconvulsive therapy for major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of affective disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Vortioxetine treatment for generalised anxiety disorder: a meta-analysis of anxiety, quality of life and safety outcomes.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Comprehensive bibliometric analysis of transcranial magnetic stimulation-based depression treatment from 2003 to 2022: Research hotspots and trends.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- The Effects of Fluoxetine and Agomelatine on Neurocognitive Functions and Sleep in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder.Psychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology · 2024Article
- Antidepressant drug prescription and incidence of COVID-19 in mental health outpatients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2023Article
- Fluoxetine improves bone microarchitecture and mechanical properties in rodents undergoing chronic mild stress - an animal model of depression.Translational psychiatry · 2022Article
- Robust antiviral activity of commonly prescribed antidepressants against emerging coronaviruses: in vitro and in silico drug repurposing studies.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Premenopausal Singaporean Women Suffering from Major Depressive Disorder Treated with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors Had Similar Bone Mineral Density as Compared with Healthy Controls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- MAOI Antidepressants: Could They Be a Next-Generation ICB Therapy?Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Article
- Using a machine learning approach to investigate factors associated with treatment-resistant depression among adults with chronic non-cancer pain conditions and major depressive disorder.Current medical research and opinion · 2021Article
- Article
- A Scientometrics Analysis and Visualization of Depressive Disorder.Current neuropharmacology · 2021Article
- Global mapping of interventions to improve quality of life of patients with depression during 1990-2018.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Review
- Knowledge and attitudes about transcranial magnetic stimulation among psychiatrists in China.BMC psychiatry · 2020Article
- Electroacupuncture improves synaptic plasticity by regulating the 5-HT1A receptor in hippocampus of rats with chronic unpredictable mild stress.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Article
- Article
- Association of sleep among 30 antidepressants: a population-wide adverse drug reaction study, 2004-2019.PeerJ · 2020Article
- 6-Sulfatoxymelatonin predicts treatment response to fluoxetine in major depressive disorder.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMajor Depressive Disorder (MDD) is the most common psychiatric disorder with high prevalence and disease burden. Biological treatments of MDD over the last several decades include a wide range of antidepressants and neurostimulation therapies. While recent meta-analyses have explored the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants, the changing trends of biological treatments have not been evaluated. Our study measured the indices of change, expectations, and popularity of biological treatments of MDD between 1988 and 2017.
methodsWe performed a scientometric analysis to identify all relevant publications related to biological treatments of MDD from 1988 to 2017. We searched the Web of Science websites for publications from 1 January 1988 to 31 December 2017. We included publications of fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, sertraline, amitriptyline, fluvoxamine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, desvenlafaxine, levomilnacipran, clomipramine, nortriptyline, bupropion, trazodone, nefazodone, mirtazapine, agomelatine, vortioxetine, vilazodone, electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We excluded grey literature, conference proceedings, books/book chapters, and publications with low quality as well as publications not related to medicine or human health. The primary outcomes assessed were indices of change, expectations, and popularity.
resultsOf 489,496 publications identified, we included 355,116 publications in this scientometric analysis. For the index of change, fluoxetine, sertraline and ECT demonstrated a positive index of change in 6 consecutive periods. Other neurostimulation therapies including rTMS, VNS, DBS and tDCS had shown a positive index of change since 1998. We calculated the index of change of popularity index (PI), which indicates that from 2013 to 2017, the number of publications on tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were reduced by 85.0% and 81.3% respectively, as compared with the period 2008-2012. For the index of expectation, fluoxetine and ECT showed the highest index of expectations in six consecutive periods and remained the highest in 2013-2017. For popularity, the three antidepressants with highest PI were fluoxetine (4.01), paroxetine (2.09), and sertraline (1.66); the three antidepressants with lowest PI were desvenlafaxine (0.08), vilazodone (0.04) and levomilnacipran (0.03). Among neurostimulation therapies, ECT has the highest PI (2.55), and tDCS the lowest PI (0.14). The PI of SSRI remained the highest among all biological treatments of MDD in 2013-2017. In contrast, the PI of ECT was reduced by approximately 50% during the period 2008 to2012 than that in the period 2013 to 2017.
conclusionsThis scientometric analysis represents comprehensive evidence on the popularity and change in prospects of biological treatments for MDD from 1988 to 2017. The popularity of SSRI peaked between 1998 and 2002, when their efficacy, tolerability and safety profile allowed them to replace the TCAs and MAOIs. While the newer neurostimulation therapies are gaining momentum, the popularity of ECT has sustained.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.