↓ Skip to main content

Management of AL amyloidosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Management of AL amyloidosis
Published in
Internal Medicine Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1111/imj.12566
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Weber, P. Mollee, B. Augustson, R. Brown, L. Catley, J. Gibson, S. Harrison, P. J. Ho, N. Horvath, W. Jaksic, D. Joshua, H. Quach, A. W. Roberts, A. Spencer, J. Szer, D. Talaulikar, B. To, A. Zannettino, H. M. Prince

Abstract

Systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell dyscrasia with a characteristic clinical phenotype caused by multiorgan deposition of an amyloidogenic monoclonal protein. This condition poses a unique management challenge due to the complexity of the clinical presentation and the narrow therapeutic window of available therapies. Improved appreciation of the need for risk stratification, standardised use of sensitive laboratory testing for monitoring disease response, vigilant supportive care and the availability of newer agents with more favourable toxicity profiles have contributed to the improvement in treatment-related mortality and overall survival seen over the past decade. Nonetheless, with respect to the optimal management approach, there is a paucity of high-level clinical evidence due to the rarity of the disease and enrolment in clinical trials is still the preferred approach where available. This review will summarise the Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Systemic Light Chain (AL) Amyloidosis recently prepared by the Medical Scientific Advisory Group (MSAG) of the Myeloma Foundation of Australia. It is hoped that these Guidelines will assist clinicians in better understanding and optimizing the management of this difficult disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 October 2014.
All research outputs
#13,726,772
of 24,484,013 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#1,267
of 2,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,283
of 269,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#18
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,484,013 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 269,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.