↓ Skip to main content

Lipids in RA: Is Less Not Necessarily More?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Rheumatology Reports, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Lipids in RA: Is Less Not Necessarily More?
Published in
Current Rheumatology Reports, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11926-018-0715-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge Plutzky, Katherine P. Liao

Abstract

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), lipid levels are dynamic and can fluctuate along with changes in inflammation. A reduction in inflammation, most commonly as a result of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy, is associated with increases in total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). In this review, we discuss new evidence shedding light on the potential mechanism underlying changes in lipid levels observed with changes in inflammation. Measured lipid levels in the blood are a result of a balance between synthesis and catabolism or absorption. Recent human studies in active RA show that the catabolic rates of lipids are higher than expected compared to expected rates in the general population. DMARD therapy appears to allow a return to baseline lower catabolic rates, resulting in an apparent increase in lipids. Increases in lipids observed with control of inflammation and RA treatment suggest a return to homeostasis. Studies are underway to understand the overall impact on cardiovascular risk in RA when lipid levels increase as a result of controlling inflammation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Unknown 5 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 20 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,255,804
of 23,563,389 outputs
Outputs from Current Rheumatology Reports
#124
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,733
of 332,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Rheumatology Reports
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,563,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 332,492 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.