↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of Sarcoidosis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of Sarcoidosis
Published in
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12016-015-8492-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert P. Baughman, Elyse E. Lower

Abstract

In general, sarcoidosis treatment should be offered to palliate symptoms and improve quality of life or to prevent end-organ disease. Symptoms include pulmonary as well as extra-pulmonary manifestations of the disease. The assessment of response to disease includes functional studies such as the forced vital capacity. Radiologic imaging such as chest x-ray has also been used to assess response, although standardized measures have rarely been tested. There are sufficient clinical trials to make specific recommendations regarding treatment of symptomatic pulmonary disease. Initial therapy is usually prednisone or a similar glucocorticoid. However, there are several features of this treatment which are unknown. This includes the initial dose, timing of reduction of dose, and when to discontinue treatment. Since many patients are intolerant of prednisone, steroid-sparing alternatives have been studied. Methotrexate is the most widely used anti-metabolite, but azathioprine, leflunomide, and mycophenolate have also been reported as helpful. The biologic agents, especially monoclonal anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) antibodies, have proved effective in patients who have failed other treatments. Infliximab, the most widely studied anti-TNF antibody, has proved effective for a range of refractory sarcoidosis. However, there remain questions regarding dose and duration of therapy. For the clinician, the many treatment options allow for a specific treatment regimen for each patient which minimizes risk while enhancing benefit.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 48%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,429,108
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#298
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,689
of 269,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 269,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.