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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effective strategies for the management of pyoderma gangrenosum: a comprehensive review.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Dermato-Venereologica, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2340/00015555-2008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Forum Patel, Sarah Fitzmaurice, Christopher Duong, Young He, Jonathan Fergus, Siba P Raychaudhuri, Miki Shirakawa Garcia, Emanual Maverakis |
| Abstract |
Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is an inflammatory disease characterized by painful skin ulcerations with undermined and erythematous borders. The etiology of PG is not well understood, but it is generally considered to be an aberrant immune response characterized by a dermal neutrophilc infiltrate. Given the existence of only a few PG clinical trials, treatment options are largely based upon anecdotal data and small case studies. In addition to classic immunosuppressive medications, PG has been reported to respond well to the anti-TNF agents, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab. Newer biologics such as ustekinumab (anti-IL-23), ixekizumab (anti-IL-17) and brodalumab (anti-IL-17R) are promising given the effect of IL-17 on neutrophil migration. However, the effectiveness of these newer agents remains to be rigorously evaluated. Multi-drug regimens have not been well described in the literature but are an excellent alternative for patients with refractory disease. Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology of PG and of the different treatments available for managing PG patients, including the theoretical benefit of initiating multidrug regimens. We also provide one possible treatment algorithm for patients with refractory disease and give examples of refractory PG cases successfully treated with multidrug regimens. |
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 States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 41 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 August 2021.
All research outputs
#7,142,997
of 25,655,374 outputs
Outputs from Acta Dermato-Venereologica
#392
of 2,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,836
of 361,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Dermato-Venereologica
#21
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,655,374 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 361,043 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.