↓ Skip to main content

Axial spondyloarthritis: a new disease entity, not necessarily early ankylosing spondylitis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Axial spondyloarthritis: a new disease entity, not necessarily early ankylosing spondylitis
Published in
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, October 2012
DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202073
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Cameron Robinson, Bryan Paul Wordsworth, John D Reveille, Matthew A Brown

Abstract

New classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis have been developed with the goal of increasing sensitivity of criteria for early inflammatory spondyloarthritis. However these criteria substantially increase heterogeneity of the resulting disease group, reducing their value in both research and clinical settings. Further research to establish criteria based on better knowledge of the natural history of non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, its aetiopathogenesis and response to treatment is required. In the meantime the modified New York criteria for ankylosing spondylitis remain a very useful classification criteria set, defining a relatively homogenous group of cases for clinical use and research studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Australia 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 61 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Other 7 10%
Professor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 October 2013.
All research outputs
#12,572,280
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#4,961
of 7,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,542
of 183,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#50
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 183,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.