↓ Skip to main content

Poor prognostic factors guiding treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a review of data from randomized clinical trials and cohort studies

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Poor prognostic factors guiding treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a review of data from randomized clinical trials and cohort studies
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13075-017-1266-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katinka Albrecht, Angela Zink

Abstract

Prognostic factors are used for treatment decisions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). High disease activity, the early presence of erosions, and autoantibody positivity are the most frequently used poor prognostic factors but other features, such as functional disability, extraarticular disease, or multibiomarkers, are also assessed. Prognostic factors are incorporated in current treatment recommendations for the management of RA and are used as inclusion criteria in randomized controlled trials. They are defined heterogeneously and the relevance of a single or combined presence of poor prognostic factors remains unclear. This review summarizes the current definitions of poor prognostic factors and their use in clinical research. Perspectives on future research are also outlined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 49%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 7 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,029,914
of 11,622,318 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#642
of 1,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,746
of 263,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,622,318 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 1,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 263,207 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.