↓ Skip to main content

Is rheumatoid factor useful in primary care? A retrospective cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Is rheumatoid factor useful in primary care? A retrospective cross-sectional study
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10067-013-2236-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Miller, Kamal R. Mahtani, Margaret A. Waterfield, Anthony Timms, Siraj A. Misbah, Raashid A. Luqmani

Abstract

Rheumatoid factor (RF) is frequently tested in general practice where its utility as a diagnostic test for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known. We undertook a retrospective cross-sectioal study to determine the utility and cost of RF in a primary care population. We compared RF with recorded clinical features based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria as a diagnostic test for RA in 235 patients in general practice using receiver operating characteristic curves and calculated the cost of testing per case of RA. We analysed 36,191 RF requests made to one laboratory from 2003-2009 at a mean annual cost of £58,164 and the variation and annual cost of RF testing between 77 practices. The sensitivity and specificity of RF at the optimal cut-off value of 20 U/ml were 0.6 and 0.96 and that of two documented clinical ACR criteria were 0.9 and 0.92, respectively. No ACR criteria were documented in 150 (63.8%) patients who had RF tested. The overall cost of RF testing per case of seropositive RA was £708.75. Of all RF requests, 66.6% was made by GPs, 7.0% by rheumatologists and 26.4% by other hospital departments. The proportion of positive tests was 5.8% in primary care and 17.7% in rheumatology. The mean number of tests performed annually in primary care was 4.65 (SD 2.7) per 1,000 patients. RF is less sensitive for RA than clinical features in primary care and is frequently requested in cases without clinical evidence of the disease, adding to the overall cost.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 27%
Student > Bachelor 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Postgraduate 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 April 2013.
All research outputs
#4,154,057
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#615
of 2,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,410
of 197,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#5
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 197,560 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.