↓ Skip to main content

Spondyloarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Internal Medicine Journal, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
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.
Title
Spondyloarthritis
Published in
Internal Medicine Journal, February 2015
DOI 10.1111/imj.12544
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. C. Robinson, H. Benham

Abstract

The field of spondyloarthritis has seen huge advances over the past 5 years. The classification of axial disease has been redefined by the axial spondyloarthritis criteria that incorporate disease captured before radiographic damage is evident as well as established erosive sacroiliac joint disease. Our knowledge of genetics and basic immunological pathways has progressed significantly. In addition, revolutionary progress has been achieved with the availability of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for treating patients with moderate to severe disease. In parallel a number of novel biomarkers have been identified that show significant promise for the future. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging have helped define positive disease. We have identified that T1 and short tau inversion recovery sequences are best for the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis and gadolinium contrast is not additive for diagnosis. Progress has been made in identifying potential agents and strategies that reduce radiographic progression. A number of referral strategies aimed at appropriate identification of patients have been trialed and found to be effective. There is still substantial work ahead but the advances of the last 5 years have made a huge and tangible difference at the clinical coalface and we suggest this trend will continue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 5 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 6 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#5,036,137
of 24,477,448 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#507
of 2,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,397
of 361,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#8
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,477,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 361,452 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 71% of its contemporaries.