↓ Skip to main content

CYP2C8 gene polymorphism and bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma

Overview of attention for article published in Haematologica, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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.
Title
CYP2C8 gene polymorphism and bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with multiple myeloma
Published in
Haematologica, June 2011
DOI 10.3324/haematol.2011.042572
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Such, J. Cervera, E. Terpos, J. V. Bagan, A. Avaria, I. Gomez, M. Margaix, M. Ibanez, I. Luna, L. Cordon, M. Roig, M. A. Sanz, M. A. Dimopoulos, J. de la Rubia

Abstract

Osteonecrosis of the jaw is an uncommon but potentially serious complication of bisphosphonate therapy in multiple myeloma. Previous studies showed that the presence of one or two minor alleles of the cytochrome P450, subfamily 2C polypeptide 8 gene (CYP2C8) polymorphism rs1934951 was an independent prognostic marker associated with development of osteonecrosis of the jaw in multiple myeloma patients treated with bisphosphonates. The aim of this study was to validate the frequency of SNP rs193451 in 79 patients with multiple myeloma. In 9 (22%) patients developing osteonecrosis of the jaw, a heterozygous genotype was found, in contrast with those who did not develop osteonecrosis of the jaw (n=4, 11%) or healthy individuals (n=6, 13%). We found no differences in the cumulative risk of developing osteonecrosis of the jaw between patients homozygous and heterozygous for the major allele. We were unable to confirm a significant association between this polymorphism and the risk of developing osteonecrosis of the jaw.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 4%
Taiwan 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 31%
Researcher 6 23%
Professor 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 73%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 1 4%

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 22 June 2011.
All research outputs
#7,853,823
of 12,516,869 outputs
Outputs from Haematologica
#1,272
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,586,578
of 11,967,929 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Haematologica
#1,220
of 1,862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,516,869 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 11,967,929 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.