| Title |
Predictive biological markers of systemic lupus erythematosus flares: a systematic literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arthritis Research & Therapy, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13075-017-1442-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Noémie Gensous, Aurélie Marti, Thomas Barnetche, Patrick Blanco, Estibaliz Lazaro, Julien Seneschal, Marie-Elise Truchetet, Pierre Duffau, Christophe Richez, on behalf of the FHU ACRONIM |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to identify the most reliable biomarkers in the literature that could be used as flare predictors in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). A systematic review of the literature was performed using two databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) through April 2015 and congress abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism were reviewed from 2010 to 2014. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and analysed selected papers in detail, using a specific questionnaire. Reports addressing the relationships between one or more defined biological test(s) and the occurrence of disease exacerbation were included in the systematic review. From all of the databases, 4668 records were retrieved, of which 69 studies or congress abstracts were selected for the systematic review. The performance of seven types of biomarkers performed routinely in clinical practice and nine types of novel biological markers was evaluated. Despite some encouraging results for anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies, anti-C1q antibodies, B-lymphocyte stimulator and tumour necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis, none of the biomarkers stood out from the others as a potential gold standard for flare prediction. The results were heterogeneous, and a lack of standardized data prevented us from identifying a powerful biomarker. No powerful conclusions could be drawn from this systematic review due to a lack of standardized data. Efforts should be undertaken to optimize future research on potential SLE biomarkers to develop validated candidates. Thus, we propose a standardized pattern for future studies. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 44% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#3,279,541
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#687
of 3,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,637
of 338,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#15
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. 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 338,261 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.