| Title |
Atherosclerosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Promoters and Opponents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12016-018-8714-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Federico Carbone, Aldo Bonaventura, Luca Liberale, Sabrina Paolino, Francesco Torre, Franco Dallegri, Fabrizio Montecucco, Maurizio Cutolo |
| Abstract |
Substantial epidemiological data identified cardiovascular (CV) diseases as a main cause of mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In light of this, RA patients may benefit from additional CV risk screening and more intensive prevention strategies. Nevertheless, current algorithms for CV risk stratification still remain tailored on general population and are burdened by a significant underestimation of CV risk in RA patients. Acute CV events in patients with RA are largely related to an accelerated atherosclerosis. As pathophysiological features of atherosclerosis overlap those occurring in the inflamed RA synovium, the understanding of those common pathways represents an urgent need and a leading challenge for CV prevention in patients with RA. Genetic background, metabolic status, gut microbiome, and systemic inflammation have been also suggested as additional key pro-atherosclerotic factors. The aim of this narrative review is to update the current knowledge about pathophysiology of atherogenesis in RA patients and potential anti-atherosclerotic effects of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 36 | 50% |
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 06 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,352,413
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#127
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,126
of 344,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 344,852 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.