↓ Skip to main content

Morphea and Eosinophilic Fasciitis: An Update

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Morphea and Eosinophilic Fasciitis: An Update
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40257-017-0269-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorre S. Mertens, Marieke M. B. Seyger, Rogier M. Thurlings, Timothy R. D. J. Radstake, Elke M. G. J. de Jong

Abstract

Morphea, also known as localized scleroderma, encompasses a group of idiopathic sclerotic skin diseases. The spectrum ranges from relatively mild phenotypes, which generally cause few problems besides local discomfort and visible disfigurement, to subtypes with severe complications such as joint contractures and limb length discrepancies. Eosinophilic fasciitis (EF, Shulman syndrome) is often regarded as belonging to the severe end of the morphea spectrum. The exact driving mechanisms behind morphea and EF pathogenesis remain to be elucidated. However, extensive extracellular matrix formation and autoimmune dysfunction are thought to be key pathogenic processes. Likewise, these processes are considered essential in systemic sclerosis (SSc) pathogenesis. In addition, similarities in clinical presentation between morphea and SSc have led to many theories about their relatedness. Importantly, morphea may be differentiated from SSc based on absence of sclerodactyly, Raynaud's phenomenon, and nailfold capillary changes. The diagnosis of morphea is often based on characteristic clinical findings. Histopathological evaluation of skin biopsies and laboratory tests are not necessary in the majority of morphea cases. However, full-thickness skin biopsies, containing fascia and muscle tissue, are required for the diagnosis of EF. Monitoring of disease activity and damage, especially of subcutaneous involvement, is one of the most challenging aspects of morphea care. Therefore, data harmonization is crucial for optimizing standard care and for comparability of study results. Recently, the localized scleroderma cutaneous assessment tool (LoSCAT) has been developed and validated for morphea. The LoSCAT is currently the most widely reported outcome measure for morphea. Care providers should take disease subtype, degree of activity, depth of involvement, and quality-of-life impairments into account when initiating treatment. In most patients with circumscribed superficial subtypes, treatment with topical therapies suffices. In more widespread disease, UVA1 phototherapy or systemic treatment with methotrexate (MTX), with or without a systemic corticosteroid combination, should be initiated. Disappointingly, few alternatives for MTX have been described and additional research is still needed to optimize treatment for these debilitating conditions. In this review, we present a state-of-the-art flow chart that guides care providers in the treatment of morphea and EF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 187 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Researcher 18 10%
Other 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 45 24%
Unknown 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 61 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 July 2022.
All research outputs
#3,007,421
of 24,132,754 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#224
of 1,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,833
of 312,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,132,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 312,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.