↓ Skip to main content

A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ‘SMILES’ trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 2,179)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
87 news outlets
blogs
16 blogs
twitter
1553 tweeters
facebook
141 Facebook pages
googleplus
13 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
A randomised controlled trial of dietary improvement for adults with major depression (the ‘SMILES’ trial)
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0791-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felice N. Jacka, Adrienne O’Neil, Rachelle Opie, Catherine Itsiopoulos, Sue Cotton, Mohammedreza Mohebbi, David Castle, Sarah Dash, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Mary Lou Chatterton, Laima Brazionis, Olivia M. Dean, Allison M. Hodge, Michael Berk

Abstract

The possible therapeutic impact of dietary changes on existing mental illness is largely unknown. Using a randomised controlled trial design, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of a dietary improvement program for the treatment of major depressive episodes. 'SMILES' was a 12-week, parallel-group, single blind, randomised controlled trial of an adjunctive dietary intervention in the treatment of moderate to severe depression. The intervention consisted of seven individual nutritional consulting sessions delivered by a clinical dietician. The control condition comprised a social support protocol to the same visit schedule and length. Depression symptomatology was the primary endpoint, assessed using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included remission and change of symptoms, mood and anxiety. Analyses utilised a likelihood-based mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) approach. The robustness of estimates was investigated through sensitivity analyses. We assessed 166 individuals for eligibility, of whom 67 were enrolled (diet intervention, n = 33; control, n = 34). Of these, 55 were utilising some form of therapy: 21 were using psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy combined; 9 were using exclusively psychotherapy; and 25 were using only pharmacotherapy. There were 31 in the diet support group and 25 in the social support control group who had complete data at 12 weeks. The dietary support group demonstrated significantly greater improvement between baseline and 12 weeks on the MADRS than the social support control group, t(60.7) = 4.38, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -1.16. Remission, defined as a MADRS score <10, was achieved for 32.3% (n = 10) and 8.0% (n = 2) of the intervention and control groups, respectively (χ (2) (1) = 4.84, p = 0.028); number needed to treat (NNT) based on remission scores was 4.1 (95% CI of NNT 2.3-27.8). A sensitivity analysis, testing departures from the missing at random (MAR) assumption for dropouts, indicated that the impact of the intervention was robust to violations of MAR assumptions. These results indicate that dietary improvement may provide an efficacious and accessible treatment strategy for the management of this highly prevalent mental disorder, the benefits of which could extend to the management of common co-morbidities. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12612000251820 . Registered on 29 February 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,553 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 35%
Other 3 18%
Unspecified 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 41%
Unspecified 3 18%
Psychology 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1779. 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 15 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,126
of 13,895,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2
of 2,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60
of 349,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,895,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 349,268 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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