↓ Skip to main content

Bone Loss in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Basic Mechanisms and Clinical Implications

Overview of attention for article published in Calcified Tissue International, December 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Bone Loss in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Basic Mechanisms and Clinical Implications
Published in
Calcified Tissue International, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00223-017-0373-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jae-hyuck Shim, Zheni Stavre, Ellen M. Gravallese

Abstract

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have historically developed progressive damage of articular bone and cartilage, which correlates with disability over time. In addition, these patients are prone to periarticular and systemic bone loss, carrying additional morbidity. In contrast to what is seen in many other rheumatic diseases, the impact of inflammation on bone in RA is uniquely destructive. Loss of articular bone (erosions) and periarticular bone (demineralization) is a result of excessive bone resorption and markedly limited bone formation. There has been tremendous progress in preventing net bone loss in RA with the advent of disease-modifying agents, including biologic agents and small molecules, that both limit inflammation and may have a direct impact on the prevention of cytokine- and antibody-driven osteoclastogenesis. However, repair of existing bone erosions, although feasible, is observed infrequently. Lack of repair is a consequence of suppression of osteoblast function and bone formation by some of the same mechanisms that promote osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption. As new agents are introduced to control inflammation in RA, and novel mechanisms to target synovitis are identified, it may be possible in the future to fully repair damaged bone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 33 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 02 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,805,036
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#116
of 1,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,536
of 446,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#11
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 446,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.