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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Treatment of Immunoglobulin Light Chain Amyloidosis Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) Consensus Statement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.06.009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angela Dispenzieri, Francis Buadi, Shaji K. Kumar, Craig B. Reeder, Tamur Sher, Martha Q. Lacy, Robert A. Kyle, Joseph R. Mikhael, Vivek Roy, Nelson Leung, Martha Grogan, Prashant Kapoor, John A. Lust, David Dingli, Ronald S. Go, Yi Lisa Hwa, Suzanne R. Hayman, Rafael Fonseca, Sikander Ailawadhi, P. Leif Bergsagel, Ascher Chanan-Khan, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Stephen J. Russell, Keith Stewart, Steven R. Zeldenrust, Morie A. Gertz |
| Abstract |
Immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis (AL amyloidosis) has an incidence of approximately 1 case per 100,000 person-years in Western countries. The rarity of the condition not only poses a challenge for making a prompt diagnosis but also makes evidenced decision making about treatment even more challenging. Physicians caring for patients with AL amyloidosis have been borrowing and customizing the therapies used for patients with multiple myeloma with varying degrees of success. One of the biggest failings in the science of the treatment of AL amyloidosis is the paucity of prospective trials, especially phase 3 trials. Herein, we present an extensive review of the literature with an aim of making recommendations in the context of the best evidence and expert opinion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 19 | 21% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 53% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 November 2023.
All research outputs
#4,082,380
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Mayo Clinic Proceedings
#1,642
of 5,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,291
of 276,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mayo Clinic Proceedings
#25
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 276,431 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.