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 |
Intravenous immunoglobulin maintenance treatment in myasthenia gravis: A randomized, controlled trial sample size simulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Muscle & Nerve, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/mus.24259 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Eienbröker, Florian Seitz, Anna Spengler, Heike Kurz, Maria Seipelt, Norbert Sommer, Wolfgang H. Oertel, Nina Timmesfeld, Björn Tackenberg |
| Abstract |
Introduction: In case of exacerbation or crisis myasthenia gravis (MG) patients can be treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), plasmapheresis, or immunoadsorption. However, IVIG efficacy data in maintenance treatment are sparse. Methods: We observed n=16 index patients prospectively with chronic and insufficiently controlled MG under standard immunosuppressants and symptomatic treatment. IVIg treatment response was measured using changes in QMG and surrogates. Based on these results a sample size calculation for a future RCT was simulated. Results: There was an enduring decline in the QMG score and other parameters of about 50% under IVIg maintenance treatment. RCT sample size calculation results in n=73 or n=33 patients per arm to detect at least a 20% vs. 30% clinical difference in the QMG score. Conclusion: We recommend using the QMG score as a primary endpoint for an RCT of IVIg maintenance for chronic MG. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 23% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 40% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
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 14 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,000,155
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from Muscle & Nerve
#2,387
of 2,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,874
of 265,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Muscle & Nerve
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 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 2,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 265,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.