| Title |
Long-term benefit of radon spa therapy in the rehabilitation of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blinded trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Rheumatology International, January 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00296-006-0293-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annegret Franke, Lothar Reiner, Karl-Ludwig Resch |
| Abstract |
This study investigates the effects of radon (plus CO2) baths on RA in contrast to artificial CO2 baths in RA rehabilitation using a double-blinded trial enrolling 134 randomised patients of an in-patient rehabilitative programme (further 73 consecutive non-randomised patients are not reported here). The outcomes were limitations in occupational context/daily living (main outcome), pain, medication and further quantities. These were measured before the start, after the end of treatment and quarterly in the year thereafter. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance (RM-ANCOVA) of the intent-to-treat population was performed with group main effects (GME) and group x course interactions (G x C) reported. Hierarchically ordered hypotheses ensured the adherence of the nominal significance level. The superiority of the radon treatment was found regarding the main outcome (RM-ANCOVA until 12 months: p(GME) = 0.15, p(G x C) = 0.033). Consumption of steroids (p(GME) = 0.064, p(G x C) = 0.025) and NSAIDs (p(GME) = 0.035, p(G x C) = 0.008) were significantly reduced. The results suggest beneficial long-term effects of radon baths as adjunct to a multimodal rehabilitative treatment of RA. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 September 2021.
All research outputs
#4,038,124
of 24,909,203 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#337
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,945
of 169,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,909,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 169,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.