| Title |
Applying refinement to the use of mice and rats in rheumatoid arthritis research
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Inflammopharmacology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10787-015-0241-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Penny Hawkins, Rachel Armstrong, Tania Boden, Paul Garside, Katherine Knight, Elliot Lilley, Michael Seed, Michael Wilkinson, Richard O. Williams |
| Abstract |
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a painful, chronic disorder and there is currently an unmet need for effective therapies that will benefit a wide range of patients. The research and development process for therapies and treatments currently involves in vivo studies, which have the potential to cause discomfort, pain or distress. This Working Group report focuses on identifying causes of suffering within commonly used mouse and rat 'models' of RA, describing practical refinements to help reduce suffering and improve welfare without compromising the scientific objectives. The report also discusses other, relevant topics including identifying and minimising sources of variation within in vivo RA studies, the potential to provide pain relief including analgesia, welfare assessment, humane endpoints, reporting standards and the potential to replace animals in RA research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Belgium | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 3 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 132 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 11% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 20% |
| Unknown | 35 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 12 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 39 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 29 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,939,033
of 25,649,244 outputs
Outputs from Inflammopharmacology
#54
of 685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,794
of 276,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Inflammopharmacology
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,649,244 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 685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 276,917 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.