| Title |
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathies: Current treatment strategies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11910-007-0023-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas B. Toothaker, Thomas H. Brannagan |
| Abstract |
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy (CIDP), considered an immune-mediated disease, is likely under-recognized and under-treated due to its heterogeneous presentation and the limitations of clinical, serologic, and electrophysiologic diagnostic criteria. Despite these limitations, early diagnosis and treatment is important in preventing irreversible axonal loss and improving functional recovery. Primary treatment modalities include intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis, for which there is randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evidence. In addition, despite less definitive published evidence of efficacy, corticosteroids are considered standard therapies because of their long history of use. Studies have failed to demonstrate a difference in efficacy among these three treatments; consequently, the choice is usually based on availability and side-effect profile. A number of chemotherapeutic and immunosuppressive agents have also shown to be effective in treating CIDP but significant evidence is lacking; therefore, these agents are primarily used in conjunction with other modalities. Regardless of the treatment choice, long-term therapy is required to maintain a response and prevent relapse. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 29% |
| Unknown | 8 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 41% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 August 2008.
All research outputs
#8,513,013
of 25,382,250 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#447
of 997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,957
of 73,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,250 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 73,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.