| Title |
Acute sacroiliitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-016-3200-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gleb Slobodin, Doron Rimar, Nina Boulman, Lisa Kaly, Michael Rozenbaum, Itzhak Rosner, Majed Odeh |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to review the data on the etiology, risk factors, clinical presentations, and diagnosis of acute sacroiliitis. A Pubmed search utilizing the indexing term "acute sacroiliitis" was conducted and the data pertinent to the aim of the review was extracted and organized in accordance with the preplanned structure of the manuscript. The diagnosis of acute sacroiliitis is often challenging because of both the relative rarity of this presentation and diverse character of acute sacroiliac pain, frequently mimicking other, more prevalent disorders. Technetium bone scintigraphy can localize the disease process to the sacroiliac joint, while computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging can be used for the detailed characterization and the extent of the disease as well as the diagnosis of complications. Pyogenic sacroiliitis is by far the most common cause of acute sacroiliitis. Brucellosis, acute sacroiliitis in the course of reactive arthritis, and crystalline-induced sacroiliitis frequently imitate pyogenic sacroiliitis. Acute sacroiliitis can rarely be also related to hematological malignancies or treatment with isotretinoin. Awareness to the possibility of acute sacroiliitis and a thorough physical examination are the necessary prerequisites to its timely diagnosis, while the appropriate laboratory and imaging studies should confirm the precise diagnosis and direct the appropriate treatment strategy. |
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 | 2 | 40% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 February 2023.
All research outputs
#4,692,280
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#739
of 3,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,949
of 399,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#3
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 399,473 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 93% of its contemporaries.