↓ Skip to main content

Glucocorticoid use and factors associated with variability in this use in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Inception Cohort

Overview of attention for article published in Rheumatology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
41 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
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.
Title
Glucocorticoid use and factors associated with variability in this use in the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Inception Cohort
Published in
Rheumatology, January 2018
DOI 10.1093/rheumatology/kex444
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jayne Little, Ben Parker, Mark Lunt, John G Hanly, Murray B Urowitz, Ann E Clarke, Juanita Romero-Diaz, Caroline Gordon, Sang-Cheol Bae, Sasha Bernatsky, Daniel J Wallace, Joan T Merrill, Jill Buyon, David A Isenberg, Anisur Rahman, Ellen M Ginzler, Michelle Petri, Mary Anne Dooley, Paul Fortin, Dafna D Gladman, Kristjan Steinsson, Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman, Munther A Khamashta, Cynthia Aranow, Meggan Mackay, Graciela S Alarcón, Susan Manzi, Ola Nived, Andreas Jönsen, Asad A Zoma, Ronald F van Vollenhoven, Manuel Ramos-Casals, Guillermo Ruiz-Irastorza, Sung Sam Lim, Kenneth C Kalunian, Murat Inanc, Diane L Kamen, Christine A Peschken, Soren Jacobsen, Anca Askanase, Jorge Sanchez-Guerrero, Ian N Bruce

Abstract

To describe glucocorticoid (GC) use in the SLICC inception cohort and to explore factors associated with GC use. In particular we aimed to assess temporal trends in GC use and to what extent physician-related factors may influence use. Patients were recruited within 15 months of diagnosis of SLE from 33 centres between 1999 and 2011 and continue to be reviewed annually. Descriptive statistics were used to detail oral and parenteral GC use. Cross sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to explore factors associated with GC use at enrolment and over time. We studied 1700 patients with a mean (s.d.) follow-up duration of 7.26 (3.82) years. Over the entire study period, 1365 (81.3%) patients received oral GCs and 447 (26.3%) received parenteral GCs at some point. GC use was strongly associated with treatment centre, age, race/ethnicity, sex, disease duration and disease activity. There was no change in the proportion of patients on GCs or the average doses of GC used over time according to year of diagnosis. GCs remain a cornerstone in SLE management and there have been no significant changes in their use over the past 10-15 years. While patient and disease factors contribute to the variation in GC use, between-centre differences suggest that physician-related factors also contribute. Evidence-based treatment algorithms are needed to inform a more standardized approach to GC use in SLE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Professor 6 8%
Other 5 6%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 37%
Psychology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 32 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 07 September 2023.
All research outputs
#929,174
of 24,945,754 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology
#154
of 6,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,083
of 453,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology
#7
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,945,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 453,573 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.