You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Initiation of biological agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: results of a Delphi study by the ASAS Group
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, August 2003
|
| DOI | 10.1136/ard.62.9.812 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T Pham, D van der Heijde, A Calin, M A Khan, Sj van der Linden, N Bellamy, M Dougados |
| Abstract |
There is ample evidence of important symptomatic efficacy of tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) inhibition in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Moreover, studies suggest that anti-TNF could be considered as the first disease controlling antirheumatic treatment (DC-ART) for AS. To determine precisely which patients with AS are most likely to benefit from anti-TNFalpha treatment because of the cost and possible long term side effects of such treatment. Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) members were asked to use a Delphi technique to name the characteristics of patients with AS for whom they would start DC-ART, in three different clinical presentations (isolated axial involvement, peripheral arthritis, enthesitis). Among the 62 invited ASAS members, more than 50% actively participated in the four phases of definition according to the Delphi technique. For each of the three clinical presentations, a combination of five to six domains was proposed, with an evaluation instrument and a cut off point defining a minimum level of activity for each domain. This study provides a profile for a patient with AS for considering initiation of biological agents that reflects the opinion of the ASAS members, using a Delphi exercise. Further studies are required to assess their relevance and their consistency with clinical practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 26 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 8 | 28% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 52% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#3,989
of 7,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,719
of 53,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#15
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 53,222 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.