↓ Skip to main content

Treatment outcome in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: the European Scleroderma Observational Study (ESOS)

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Treatment outcome in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: the European Scleroderma Observational Study (ESOS)
Published in
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, February 2017
DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210503
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariane L Herrick, Xiaoyan Pan, Sébastien Peytrignet, Mark Lunt, Roger Hesselstrand, Luc Mouthon, Alan Silman, Edith Brown, László Czirják, Jörg H W Distler, Oliver Distler, Kim Fligelstone, William J Gregory, Rachel Ochiel, Madelon Vonk, Codrina Ancuţa, Voon H Ong, Dominique Farge, Marie Hudson, Marco Matucci-Cerinic, Alexandra Balbir-Gurman, Øyvind Midtvedt, Alison C Jordan, Paresh Jobanputra, Wendy Stevens, Pia Moinzadeh, Frances C Hall, Christian Agard, Marina E Anderson, Elisabeth Diot, Rajan Madhok, Mohammed Akil, Maya H Buch, Lorinda Chung, Nemanja Damjanov, Harsha Gunawardena, Peter Lanyon, Yasmeen Ahmad, Kuntal Chakravarty, Søren Jacobsen, Alexander J MacGregor, Neil McHugh, Ulf Müller-Ladner, Gabriela Riemekasten, Michael Becker, Janet Roddy, Patricia E Carreira, Anne Laure Fauchais, Eric Hachulla, Jennifer Hamilton, Murat İnanç, John S McLaren, Jacob M van Laar, Sanjay Pathare, Susannah Proudman, Anna Rudin, Joanne Sahhar, Brigitte Coppere, Christine Serratrice, Tom Sheeran, Douglas J Veale, Claire Grange, Georges-Selim Trad, Christopher P Denton

Abstract

The rarity of early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) makes randomised controlled trials very difficult. We aimed to use an observational approach to compare effectiveness of currently used treatment approaches. This was a prospective, observational cohort study of early dcSSc (within three years of onset of skin thickening). Clinicians selected one of four protocols for each patient: methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cyclophosphamide or 'no immunosuppressant'. Patients were assessed three-monthly for up to 24 months. The primary outcome was the change in modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS). Confounding by indication at baseline was accounted for using inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weights. As a secondary outcome, an IPT-weighted Cox model was used to test for differences in survival. Of 326 patients recruited from 50 centres, 65 were prescribed methotrexate, 118 MMF, 87 cyclophosphamide and 56 no immunosuppressant. 276 (84.7%) patients completed 12 and 234 (71.7%) 24 months follow-up (or reached last visit date). There were statistically significant reductions in mRSS at 12 months in all groups: -4.0 (-5.2 to -2.7) units for methotrexate, -4.1 (-5.3 to -2.9) for MMF, -3.3 (-4.9 to -1.7) for cyclophosphamide and -2.2 (-4.0 to -0.3) for no immunosuppressant (p value for between-group differences=0.346). There were no statistically significant differences in survival between protocols before (p=0.389) or after weighting (p=0.440), but survival was poorest in the no immunosuppressant group (84.0%) at 24 months. These findings may support using immunosuppressants for early dcSSc but suggest that overall benefit is modest over 12 months and that better treatments are needed. NCT02339441.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Other 20 11%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 41 23%
Unknown 46 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 54 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 25 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,113,650
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#585
of 7,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,712
of 433,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
#11
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 433,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.