| Title |
Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant (ASIA) evolution after silicone implants. Who is at risk?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-015-2931-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Idan Goren, Gad Segal, Yehuda Shoenfeld |
| Abstract |
Silicone implants have been in use since the mid-twentieth century, especially in the field of reconstructive breast surgery, and have long been considered as biologically inert and harmless. However, growing body of evidence from the past two decades links silicone with subsequent autoimmunity-related complications, collectively known as autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvant-ASIA. Previous data suggest that while some patients tend to develop post-exposure autoimmune phenomena such as ASIA, other do not. However, thus far, no criteria for risk stratification were suggested. This current review summarizes the data linking silicone implants and autoimmunity, suggesting means of defining individuals who are at increased risk to develop silicone-induced ASIA, and therefore, a recommendation was made to avoid silicone implantation, e.g., individuals with previously diagnosed autoimmune disorders or with genetic preponderance for hyperactive immune system should not be considered as candidates for silicone implantation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 95 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 52% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,832,285
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#206
of 2,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,126
of 237,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#5
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 237,936 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 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.