↓ Skip to main content

Therapeutic Options After Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis or Spondyloarthritides

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Therapy, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Therapeutic Options After Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis or Spondyloarthritides
Published in
Advances in Therapy, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12325-014-0142-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcello Govoni, Alessandra Bortoluzzi, Andrea Lo Monaco, Silvano Adami, Olga Addimanda, Cristian Caimmi, Salvatore De Vita, Clodoveo Ferri, Andreina Manfredi, Giovanni Orsolini, Niccolò Possemato, Luca Quartuccio, Carlo Salvarani, Alen Zabotti, Maurizio Rossini

Abstract

The prognosis for patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritides has improved dramatically due to earlier diagnosis, recognition of the need to treat early with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), alone or in combinations, the establishment of treatment targets, and the development of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Many patients are now able to achieve clinical remission or low disease activity with therapy, and reduce or eliminate systemic corticosteroid use. Guidelines recommend methotrexate as a first-line agent for the initial treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; however, a majority of patients will require a change of csDMARD or step up to combination therapy with the addition of another csDMARD or a bDMARD. However, treatment failure is common and switching to a different therapy may be required. The large number of available treatment options, combined with a lack of comparative data, makes the choice of a new therapy complex and often not evidence based. We summarize and discuss evidence to inform treatment decisions in patients who require a change in therapy, including baseline factors that may predict response to therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 12%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,198,374
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#1,076
of 2,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,254
of 231,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 231,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.