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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Prevalence of Aortic Calcification on Vertebral Fracture Assessment Imaging Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Densitometry, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jocd.2013.02.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ausaf Mohammad, Derek Lohan, Diane Bergin, Sarah Mooney, John Newell, Martin O’Donnell, Robert J. Coughlan, John J. Carey |
| Abstract |
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of osteoporosis (OP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans have been validated for identifying patients with RA at risk for fracture. Reliable CVD risk stratification remains an unmet need in this population. Vertebral fracture assessment (VFA)-detected abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) has been validated as a marker of CVD in other populations, but the prevalence among patients with RA is unknown. In this study, we determined the prevalence and severity of AAC on VFA scans in a cohort of patients with RA. AAC was detected in 211 of the 603 (35%) eligible subjects; 24% were graded as severe. In multivariable analyses, the presence of AAC was significantly associated with longer disease duration and higher disease activity (p<0.05). Further studies are needed on the relationship between AAC and CVD in patients with RA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 April 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Densitometry
#364
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,722
of 210,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Densitometry
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 210,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.