Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31247926›Full record

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.

Bach X Tran, Giang H Ha, Giang T Vu, Long H Nguyen, Carl A Latkin, Kalpana Nathan, Roger S McIntyre, Cyrus S Ho, Wilson W Tam, Roger C Ho

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Bach X TranInstitute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0001-7827-8449
Giang H HaInstitute for Global Health Innovations, Duy Tan University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam.
Giang T VuCenter of Excellence in Evidence-Based Medicine, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam.
Long H NguyenCenter of Excellence in Behavioral Medicine, Nguyen Tat Thanh University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam.
Carl A LatkinJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Kalpana NathanStanford University School of Medicine, 291 Campus Drive, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Roger S McIntyreInstitute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada.
Cyrus S HoDepartment of Psychological Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore 119228, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7092-9566
Wilson W TamAlice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119077, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0641-3060
Roger C HoDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119228, Singapore. pcmrhcm@nus.edu.sg.ORCID 0000-0001-9629-4493
Johns Hopkins University · USNational University of Singapore · SGTrường ĐH Nguyễn Tất Thành · VNDuy Tan University · VNNational University Health System · SGStanford University · USUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Antidepressive AgentsBibliometricsElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMotivationTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAntidepressive Agentsantidepressantsdepressive disorderelectroconvulsive therapyneurostimulationscientometric analysis

Identifiers

PMID31247926
PMCPMC6651662
OpenAlexW2954517337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.