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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Treating primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: potential of ocrelizumab and review of B-cell therapies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dnnd.s100096 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny J Feng, Daniel Ontaneda |
| Abstract |
Multiple sclerosis (MS) therapy has evolved rapidly with an increased availability of several immunomodulating therapies over the past two decades. Disease-modifying therapies have proven to be effective in treating relapse-remitting MS (RRMS). However, clinical trials involving some of the same agents for secondary-progressive and primary-progressive MS (SPMS and PPMS) have been largely negative. The pathogenesis of progressive MS remains unclear, but B-cells may play a significant role in chronic compartmentalized inflammation, likely contributing to disease progression. Biologics targeted at B-cells, such as rituximab, are effective in treating RRMS. Ocrelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody to CD20+ B-cells that has shown positive results in PPMS with a significant reduction in disease progression. This review aims to discuss in detail the involvement of B-cells in MS pathogenesis, current progress of currently available and investigational biologics, with focus on ocrelizumab, and future prospects for B-cell therapy in PPMS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Qatar | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 17 | 52% |
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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,038,257
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease
#32
of 84 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,622
of 420,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 84 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 420,361 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.