| Title |
An Update on Systemic Sclerosis-Associated Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: a Review of the Current Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Rheumatology Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11926-018-0709-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sneha M. Sundaram, Lorinda Chung |
| Abstract |
This review will summarize the most current literature on the clinical impact, epidemiology, risk factors, screening recommendations, predictors of outcomes, and treatment options in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc). PAH continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality in SSc. Many risk factors and predictors of outcomes have been identified in patients with SSc including clinical, hemodynamic, and laboratory parameters. Screening for PAH in SSc patients is important and screening algorithms have been developed. Despite many available treatment options for PAH, prognosis remains poor. Awareness of risk factors, early detection, and up-front combination treatment are important considerations in SSc-PAH and may lead to improved outcomes. Further research to develop better biomarkers and therapies is needed to continue to improve survival and outcomes in patients with SSc-PAH. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 25 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Current Rheumatology Reports
#564
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,664
of 330,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Rheumatology Reports
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.