↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
108 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.
Article details
Title
RANKL Inhibition With Denosumab Does Not Influence 3‐Year Progression of Aortic Calcification or Incidence of Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis and High Cardiovascular Risk
Published in
Journal of Bone & Mineral Research, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/jbmr.2043
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Atherosclerosis and osteoporosis are chronic diseases that progress with age, and studies suggest aortic calcification, an indicator of atherosclerosis, is inversely associated with bone mineral density (BMD). The osteoprotegerin (OPG)/receptor activator of NF-κB (RANK)/RANK ligand (RANKL) system has been proposed as a shared regulatory system for bone and vasculature. Denosumab (DMAb), a monoclonal antibody against RANKL, improved BMD and reduced fracture risk in the Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months (FREEDOM) trial. We evaluated whether or not treatment with DMAb influenced progression of aortic calcification (AC) and incidence of cardiovascular (CV) adverse events. We included 2363 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (1142 placebo, 1221 DMAb), selected from 7808 participants in the FREEDOM trial (3906 placebo, 3902 DMAb), at high risk of CV events according to modified Raloxifene Use for the Heart (RUTH) criteria. CV adverse events were reported by participants. AC scores were assessed using a semiquantitative method from lateral spine X-rays. Change in AC score from baseline to 12 (n = 1377), 24 (n = 1231), and 36 months (n = 1045) was calculated as AC score at follow-up minus AC score at baseline. AC progression was defined as change in AC score >0. Baseline characteristics, CV risk factors, and AC scores were similar between treatment groups. Mean age of participants was 74 years (range, 60-90), 88% were white, and 77% had AC score >0 at baseline. Frequency of AC progression over 3 years did not differ between women in placebo (22%) and DMAb (22%) groups (p = 0.98). AC progression did not differ between treatment groups when analyzed by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate or by baseline AC scores. Frequency of CV adverse events did not differ between placebo (40%) and DMAb (38%) groups (p = 0.26). In conclusion, DMAb treatment had no effect on progression of AC or incidence of CV adverse events compared to placebo.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 33 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 01 June 2021.
All research outputs
#9,666,256
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bone & Mineral Research
#2,616
of 5,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,463
of 243,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bone & Mineral Research
#26
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 243,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.