↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Development and validation of a model to predict platelet response to romiplostim in patients with lower‐risk myelodysplastic syndromes
Published in
British Journal of Haematology, July 2014
DOI 10.1111/bjh.13037
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Low endogenous erythropoietin levels and limited red blood cell transfusion history can predict response to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in anaemic patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The relationship between endogenous thrombopoietin (THPO) levels and platelet response to romiplostim is unknown. Variables including baseline endogenous THPO levels, transfusion needs, and platelet response were analysed in a randomized trial of 250 thrombocytopenic, lower-risk MDS patients (International Prognostic Scoring System low/intermediate-1). A predictive scoring system was developed based on log-likelihood ratios and logistic coefficients. Patients with HI-P (haematological improvement - platelets) responses had lower mean baseline THPO levels (P = 0·0497) and were more likely to have <6 platelet units transfused in the past year (P = 0·0027), as did patients with platelet responses ≥50% of weeks on romiplostim (P = 0·001 and P = 0·0037, respectively). A model for predicting response to romiplostim was developed and validated in a separate MDS cohort (N = 72). Patients in low-, intermediate-, and high-response groups had response rates of 17·4%, 29·6%, and 50·7%, respectively, for HI-P, and 17·4%, 33·8%, and 65·2%, respectively, for ≥50% response. For thrombocytopenic patients with lower-risk MDS, lower baseline THPO levels (<500 pg/ml) and limited platelet transfusion history predicted a greater likelihood of a subsequent platelet response to romiplostim.

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 29 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 %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unknown 11 38%
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 20 October 2014.
All research outputs
#22,012,573
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Haematology
#7,373
of 7,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,738
of 231,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Haematology
#69
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 231,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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.