↓ Skip to main content

Spinal Cord as an Adjunct to Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Defining “No Evidence of Disease Activity” in Multiple Sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of MS Care, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Spinal Cord as an Adjunct to Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Defining “No Evidence of Disease Activity” in Multiple Sclerosis
Published in
International Journal of MS Care, May 2017
DOI 10.7224/1537-2073.2016-068
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To access the article, post-test, and evaluation online, go to http://www.cmscscholar.org. The target audience for this activity is physicians, physician assistants, nursing professionals, and other health-care providers involved in the management of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). 1) Describe the concept of "no evidence of disease activity" in MS.2) Recognize the role of spinal cord imaging in routine monitoring of MS disease activity. This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint providership of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC), Nurse Practitioner Alternatives (NPA), and Delaware Media Group. The CMSC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The CMSC designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Nurse Practitioner Alternatives (NPA) is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's Commission on Accreditation. NPA designates this enduring material for 1.0 Continuing Nursing Education credit (none in the area of pharmacology). Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP, has served as Nurse Planner for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Francois Bethoux, MD, Editor in Chief of the International Journal of MS Care (IJMSC), has served as Physician Planner for this activity. He has received royalties from Springer Publishing; has received consulting fees from Acorda Therapeutics, Merz Pharma, and Ipsen; and has performed contracted research for Biogen, Acorda Therapeutics, and Adamas Pharmaceuticals. Laurie Scudder, DNP, NP, has served as Nurse Planner for this activity. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Subhash Tummala, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Tarun Singhal, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Vinit V. Oommen, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Gloria Kim, BA, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Fariha Khalid, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Brian C. Healy, PhD, has received research support from Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Verily Life Sciences. Rohit Bakshi, MD, has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alkermes, Biogen, Novartis, and Questcor; and has received research support from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, and Teva. Dr. Bakshi's spouse owns stock in Biogen. One anonymous peer reviewer for the IJMSC has received consulting fees or honoraria from Actelion, Bayer HealthCare, Biogen Idec, Chugai, EMD Canada, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Hoffman-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Teva Canada Innovation; has served on a speakers' bureau for Genzyme; has served on an advisory board, a board of directors, or another similar group for Actelion, Bayer HealthCare, Biogen Idec, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck Serono, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; and has received research support from Genzyme. The other two reviewers have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The staff at the IJMSC, CMSC, NPA, and Delaware Media Group who are in a position to influence content have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Release Date: May 1, 2017 Valid for Credit Through: May 1, 2018 In order to receive CME/CNE credit, participants must: 1) Review the CME/CNE information, including learning objectives and author disclosures.2) Study the educational content.3) Complete the post-test and evaluation, which are available at http://www.cmscscholar.org. Statements of Credit are awarded upon successful completion of the post-test with a passing score of >70% and the evaluation. There is no fee to participate in this activity. This CME/CNE activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not approved by the FDA. CMSC, NPA, and Delaware Media Group do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications. The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of CMSC, NPA, or Delaware Media Group. Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any medications, diagnostic procedures, or treatments discussed in this publication should not be used by clinicians or other health-care professionals without first evaluating their patients' conditions, considering possible contraindications or risks, reviewing any applicable manufacturer's product information, and comparing any therapeutic approach with the recommendations of other authorities.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 11 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 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 36%
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 9%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 45%
Neuroscience 3 27%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Engineering 1 9%
Unknown 1 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#22,976,612
of 28,125,441 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of MS Care
#481
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,805
of 332,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of MS Care
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,125,441 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 332,086 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.