↓ Skip to main content

Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, August 2012
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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
11 patents
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Published in
CNS Drugs, August 2012
DOI 10.2165/00023210-200519050-00001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siobhan M. Leary, Alan J. Thompson

Abstract

Approximately 10% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) run a primary progressive course characterised by an accumulation of neurological deficits without relapse or remission. Designing therapeutic trials in primary progressive MS (PPMS) has presented several problems. Patient recruitment may be difficult because of the relative rarity of PPMS and historically has been hindered by the lack of specific diagnostic criteria. There has been a limited choice of validated outcome measures, although, in recent studies, the MS functional composite measure and magnetic resonance imaging measures of lesion load and atrophy have been widely used. Despite these problems, several trials have been designed specifically for PPMS, including exploratory randomised controlled trials of interferon-beta-1a and interferon-beta-1b and mitoxantrone, a phase III trial of glatiramer acetate, and an open-label study of riluzole. Patients with PPMS have also been included in randomised controlled trials of azathioprine, methotrexate, cladribine, intravenous immunoglobulin and cyclophosphamide, and open-label studies of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation and pirfenidone in progressive MS. However, no treatment has been proven definitively to modify the course of the disease. Looking to the future, therapeutic agents should aim to target the underlying pathogenic mechanisms in PPMS. As a result of the relative lack of inflammation in PPMS, neuroprotective agents that target neuronal loss directly, rather than inflammation, may be more worthwhile. However, further investigation into the pathogenic mechanisms in PPMS is required to guide the development of future therapeutic agents.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Master 6 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 38%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,863,633
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#241
of 1,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,407
of 187,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#79
of 541 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 187,950 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 541 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.