| Title |
Cardiovascular Risk and the Use of Biologic Agents in Rheumatoid Arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Rheumatology Reports, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11926-014-0459-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Debbie T. Lim, Amy C. Cannella, Kaleb D Michaud, Ted R. Mikuls |
| Abstract |
Although patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are recognized to be disproportionately impacted by cardiovascular disease (CVD), effective approaches of primary and secondary CVD prevention have not been well defined in this population. Given their robust disease-modifying potential and effects on both pro-inflammatory and pro-atherogenic pathways, there has been substantial speculation that biologic treatments may serve as a means of providing highly effective RA disease control while simultaneously reducing CVD risk in this high risk group. In this review, we examine available evidence relevant to the associations of approved biologic treatments with CVD outcomes in the context of RA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 22% |
| Unknown | 5 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 44% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
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 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,728,987
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Current Rheumatology Reports
#534
of 709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,178
of 255,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Rheumatology Reports
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 255,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.