↓ Skip to main content

Antipsychotic treatments; focus on lurasidone

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antipsychotic treatments; focus on lurasidone
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2013.00102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomiki Sumiyoshi

Abstract

The introduction of atypical antipsychotic drugs (AAPDs), or second-generation antipsychotics, with clozapine as the prototype, has largely changed the clinicians' attitudes toward the treatment of mental illnesses including, but not limited to schizophrenia. Initially, there was optimism that AAPDs would be superior over typical antipsychotic drugs (TAPDs), or first-generation antipsychotic drugs, in terms of efficacy in various phenomenological aspects, including cognitive impairment, and less likelihood of causing adverse events. However, these views have been partly challenged by results from recent meta-analysis studies. Specifically, cardio-metabolic side effects of AAPDs, in spite of a relative paucity of extrapyramidal symptoms, may sometimes limit the use of these agents. Accordingly, attempts have been made to develop newer compounds, e.g., lurasidone, with the aim of increasing efficacy and tolerability. Further investigations are warranted to determine if a larger proportion of patients will be benefitted by treatment with AAPDs compared to TAPDs in terms of remission and recovery.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 88 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Psychology 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 August 2013.
All research outputs
#14,759,250
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,133
of 15,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,339
of 280,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#61
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,949 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 280,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.