| Title |
Osteoporosis in Rheumatic Diseases: Anti-rheumatic Drugs and the Skeleton
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Calcified Tissue International, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00223-018-0401-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alanna M. Dubrovsky, Mie Jin Lim, Nancy E. Lane |
| Abstract |
Osteoporosis in rheumatic diseases is a very well-known complication. Systemic inflammation results in both generalized and localized bone loss and erosions. Recently, increased knowledge of inflammatory process in rheumatic diseases has resulted in the development of potent inhibitors of the cytokines, the biologic DMARDs. These treatments reduce systemic inflammation and have some effect on the generalized and localized bone loss. Progression of bone erosion was slowed by TNF, IL-6 and IL-1 inhibitors, a JAK inhibitor, a CTLA4 agonist, and rituximab. Effects on bone mineral density varied between the biological DMARDs. Medications that are approved for the treatment of osteoporosis have been evaluated to prevent bone loss in rheumatic disease patients, including denosumab, cathepsin K, bisphosphonates, anti-sclerostin antibodies and parathyroid hormone (hPTH 1-34), and have some efficacy in both the prevention of systemic bone loss and reducing localized bone erosions. This article reviews the effects of biologic DMARDs on bone mass and erosions in patients with rheumatic diseases and trials of anti-osteoporotic medications in animal models and patients with rheumatic diseases. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,834,502
of 25,613,746 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#106
of 1,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,943
of 344,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,613,746 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 1,890 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 344,873 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.