↓ Skip to main content

Access to the next wave of biologic therapies (Abatacept and Tocilizumab) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in England and Wales

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Title
Access to the next wave of biologic therapies (Abatacept and Tocilizumab) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in England and Wales
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10067-011-1936-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yee Chiu, Andrew J. K. Ostor, Anthony Hammond, Katharina Sokoll, Marina Anderson, Maya Buch, Michael R. Ehrenstein, Patrick Gordon, Sophia Steer, Ian N. Bruce

Abstract

Patients in England and Wales with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive treatment from the National Health Service (NHS) with therapies approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), under guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). This document overviews the current NICE guidelines for the treatment of RA and identifies scenarios when such guidance may not represent the optimum management strategy for individual patients. Specifically, we consider the use of tocilizumab or abatacept as the most appropriate treatments for some patients. In such scenarios, it may be possible for the clinician to secure access to the required therapy through an application procedure known as an 'individual funding request', the process of which is described in detail here. At present, it is unclear the extent to which the proposed reform of the NHS will affect the role of NICE in providing guidance and setting standards of care. Until the full impact of the proposed changes are realized, individual funding requests will remain a valuable way of securing the optimal treatment for all patients suffering from RA.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 10 29%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 62%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 June 2012.
All research outputs
#15,241,801
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,969
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,003
of 246,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#17
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 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 2,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 246,172 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.