↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Treatment of catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in rheumatology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 1,373)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome
Published in
Current opinion in rheumatology, May 2016
DOI 10.1097/bor.0000000000000269
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nayef M. Kazzaz, W. Joseph McCune, Jason S. Knight

Abstract

Catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) is a severe manifestation of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Although affecting only 1% of patients with APS, the condition is frequently fatal if not recognized and treated early. Here, we will review the current approach to diagnosis and treatment of CAPS. Data from the international 'CAPS registry', spearheaded by the European Forum on Antiphospholipid Antibodies, have improved our understanding of at-risk patients, typical clinical features, and precipitating diagnoses. Current guidelines also continue to support the role of anticoagulants and glucocorticoids as foundation therapy in all patients. Finally, new basic science and case series suggest that novel therapies, such as rituximab and eculizumab, warrant further study. Attention to associated diagnoses, such as infection and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), is critical at the time of diagnosis. All patients should be treated with anticoagulants, corticosteroids, and possibly plasma exchange. In patients with SLE, cyclophosphamide should also be considered. In refractory or relapsing cases, new therapies, such as rituximab and possibly eculizumab, may be options, but need further study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Other 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 50%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 15 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,594,611
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in rheumatology
#37
of 1,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,788
of 312,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in rheumatology
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 312,675 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.