↓ Skip to main content

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Considerations for the Pharmacological Management of Elderly Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Considerations for the Pharmacological Management of Elderly Patients
Published in
Drugs & Aging, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40266-017-0443-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sizheng Zhao, Fred Otieno, Asan Akpan, Robert J. Moots

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are widely used by patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, a significant proportion of these patients do not inform their physicians. This has many potential implications in a group of predominantly elderly patients with altered pharmacokinetics, comorbidities and polypharmacy of potentially toxic drugs. CAM usage may affect compliance and pharmacokinetics of conventional therapy for RA and comorbidities; therefore, physicians should engage patients in dialogues regarding CAM usage. This review introduces common CAMs used by RA patients, such as herbal remedies, supplements, and fish and plant oils, and their potential impact on conventional therapy. Efficacy of these treatments are not reviewed in detail but references for reviews and trials are provided for further reading. Fish oils and vitamin D supplementation may generally be recommended, while thunder god vine should be avoided. Patients should also be made aware of the risks of contamination and adulteration of less reputable sources of CAMs, and directed to evidence-based sources of information. Physicians should acknowledge the limitations of scientific evidence and not be prejudiced or dogmatic; however, they should remain resolute against therapies that are known to be ineffective or unsafe.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Bachelor 16 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 35 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#4,140,782
of 22,957,478 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#266
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,725
of 310,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#6
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,957,478 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 310,771 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.