↓ Skip to main content

Juvenile arthritis management in less resourced countries (JAMLess): consensus recommendations from the Cradle of Humankind

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Juvenile arthritis management in less resourced countries (JAMLess): consensus recommendations from the Cradle of Humankind
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10067-018-4304-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christiaan Scott, Mercedes Chan, Waheba Slamang, Lawrence Okong’o, Ross Petty, Ronald M. Laxer, María-Martha Katsicas, Francis Fredrick, James Chipeta, Gail Faller, Gecilmara Pileggi, Claudia Saad-Magalhaes, Carine Wouters, Helen E. Foster, Raju Kubchandani, Nicolino Ruperto, Ricardo Russo

Abstract

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most prevalent chronic rheumatic disease in children and young people (CYP) and a major cause of pain and disability. The vast majority of the world's children and their families live in less resourced countries (LRCs) and face significant socioeconomic and healthcare challenges. Current recommendations for standards of care and treatment for children with JIA do not consider children living in less resourced countries. In order to develop appropriate recommendations for the care of CYP with JIA in less resourced countries a meeting of experienced pediatric rheumatologists from less resourced countries was convened with additional input from a steering group of international pediatric rheumatologists with experience in developing recommendations and standards of care for JIA. Following a needs assessment survey of healthcare workers caring for CYP with JIA in LRC, a literature review was carried out and management recommendations formulated using Delphi technique and a final consensus conference. Responses from the needs assessment were received from 121/483 (25%) practitioners from 25/49 (51%) less resourced countries. From these responses, the initial 84 recommendations were refined and expanded through a series of 3 online Delphi rounds. A final list of 90 recommendations was proposed for evaluation. Evidence for each statement was reviewed, graded, and presented to the consensus group. The degree of consensus, level of agreement, and level of evidence for these recommendations are reported. Recommendations arrived at by consensus for CYP with JIA in less resourced countries cover 5 themes: (1) diagnosis, (2) referral and monitoring, (3) education and training, (4) advocacy and networks, and (5) research. Thirty-five statements were drafted. All but one statement achieved 100% consensus. The body of published evidence was small and the quality of evidence available for critical appraisal was low. Our recommendations offer novel insights and present consensus-based strategies for the management of JIA in less resourced countries. The emphasis on communicable and endemic diseases influencing the diagnosis and treatment of JIA serves as a valuable addition to existing JIA guidelines. With increasing globalization, these recommendations as a whole provide educational and clinical utility for clinicians worldwide. The low evidence base for our recommendations reflects a shortage of research specific to less resourced countries and serves as an impetus for further inquiry towards optimizing care for children with JIA around the world.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Librarian 4 5%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 28 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 35 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,600,120
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#329
of 3,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,955
of 346,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#6
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 346,511 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.