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 |
Patient Preferences for Biologicals in Psoriasis: Top Priority of Safety for Cardiovascular Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0144335 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marthe-Lisa Schaarschmidt, Christian Kromer, Raphael Herr, Astrid Schmieder, Diana Sonntag, Sergij Goerdt, Wiebke K. Peitsch |
| Abstract |
Patients with psoriasis are often affected by comorbidities, which largely influence treatment decisions. Here we performed conjoint analysis to assess the impact of comorbidities on preferences of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis for outcome (probability of 50% and 90% improvement, time until response, sustainability of success, probability of mild and severe adverse events (AE), probability of ACR 20 response) and process attributes (treatment location, frequency, duration and delivery method) of biologicals. The influence of comorbidities on Relative Importance Scores (RIS) was determined with analysis of variance and multivariate regression. Among the 200 participants completing the study, 22.5% suffered from psoriatic arthritis, 31.5% from arterial hypertension, 15% from cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary artery disease, and/or arterial occlusive disease), 14.5% from diabetes, 11% from hyperlipidemia, 26% from chronic bronchitis or asthma and 12.5% from depression. Participants with psoriatic arthritis attached greater importance to ACR 20 response (RIS = 10.3 vs. 5.0, p<0.001; β = 0.278, p<0.001) and sustainability (RIS = 5.8 vs. 5.0, p = 0.032) but less value to time until response (RIS = 3.4 vs. 4.8, p = 0.045) than those without arthritis. Participants with arterial hypertension were particularly interested in a low risk of mild AE (RIS 9.7 vs. 12.1; p = 0.033) and a short treatment duration (RIS = 8.0 vs. 9.6, p = 0.002). Those with cardiovascular disease worried more about mild AE (RIS = 12.8 vs. 10, p = 0.027; β = 0.170, p = 0.027) and severe AE (RIS = 23.2 vs. 16.2, p = 0.001; β = 0.203, p = 0.007) but cared less about time until response (β = -0.189, p = 0.013), treatment location (β = -0.153, p = 0.049), frequency (β = -0.20, p = 0.008) and delivery method (β = -0.175, p = 0.023) than others. Patients' concerns should be addressed in-depth when prescribing biologicals to comorbid patients, keeping in mind that TNF antagonists may favourably influence cardiovascular risk. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 115 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 26 | 22% |
| Unknown | 30 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 34% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 19 | 16% |
| Unknown | 34 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#131,019
of 194,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,317
of 387,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,072
of 4,910 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 387,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,910 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.