↓ Skip to main content

Consensus opinion of a North American Working Group regarding the classification of digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Consensus opinion of a North American Working Group regarding the classification of digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10067-013-2460-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Murray Baron, Lorinda Chung, Geneviève Gyger, Laura Hummers, Dinesh Khanna, Maureen D. Mayes, Janet E. Pope, Ami A. Shah, Virginia D. Steen, Russell Steele, Solène Tatibouet, Ariane Herrick, Ulf Müller-Ladner, Marie Hudson

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to develop a standard classification of digital ulcers (DUs) in systemic sclerosis (SSc) for use in observational or therapeutic studies and to assess the reliability of these definitions as well as of the measurement of ulcer area. Ten North American rheumatologists with expertise in SSc reviewed multiple photos of DUs, examined four SSc subjects with DUs, and came to a consensus on the definitions for digital, active, healed, and indeterminate ulcers. These ten raters then examined the right hand of ten SSc subjects twice and the left hand once to classify ulcers and to measure ulcer area. Weighted and Fleiss kappa were used to calculate intra- and interrater agreement on classification of ulcers, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess agreement on ulcer area. Because the traditional ICC calculations relied on a small number of ulcers, ICCs were recalculated using the results of linear mixed models to evaluate the variance components of observations on all the data. Intrarater kappa for classifying DU as not an ulcer/healed ulcer versus active/indeterminate ulcer was substantial (0.76), and interrater kappa was moderate (0.53). The ICC for ulcer area using the linear mixed models was moderate both for intrarater (0.57) and interrater (0.48) measurements. A consensus for the classification of DUs in SSc was developed, and after a training session, rheumatologists with expertise in SSc are able to reliably classify DUs and to measure ulcer area.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,291,764
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,977
of 2,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,440
of 306,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#23
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 306,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.