↓ Skip to main content

Injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000520
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Clark, Peter Tugwell, Kathryn J Bennett, Claire Bombardier, Beverley Shea, George A Wells, Maria E Suarez-Almazor, Clark, P, Tugwell, P, Bennet, K, Bombardier, C, Shea, B, Wells, G, Suarez-Almazor, M E, Clark, Patricia, Tugwell, Peter, Bennett, Kathryn J, Bombardier, Claire, Shea, Beverley, Wells, George A, Suarez-Almazor, Maria E, Clark P; Tugwell P; Bennett KJ; Bombardier C; Shea B; Wells GA; Suarez-Almazor ME

Abstract

To estimate the short-term benefit and risk of side-effects of injectable gold for rheumatoid arthritis. We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group trials register, and Medline, up to July 1997, using the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration (Dickersin 1994). The search was complemented with bibliography searching of the reference list of the trials retrieved from the electronic search. Key experts in the area were contacted for further published and unpublished articles. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing injectable gold against placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis were included. Methodological quality of the RCTs was asessed by two reviewers (MS, BS) (kappa=1.0). Rheumatoid arthritis outcome measures were extracted by two reviewers from the publications for the 6 month endpoint. Sufficient data was obtained to conduct a pooled analysis of the number of swollen joints, physician global assessment, patient global assessment and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Results were analyzed as standardized weighted mean differences for swollen joints and global assessments and weighted mean differences for ESR. Toxicity was evaluated with pooled odds ratios for withdrawals. Heterogeneity was estimated using a chi-square test. Fixed effects models were used throughout. Four trials and 415 patients were included. A statistically significant benefit was observed for injectable gold when compared to placebo. The standardized weighted difference (effect size) between gold and placebo for the number of swollen joints was -0.5, translating into a percentage change of 30% in favour of gold adjusted for placebo. Statistically significant differences were also observed for ESR and patient and physician assessments. Twenty two percent of the treated patients withdrew from toxicity compared to 4% of controls (OR=3.9 - 95%Cl: 2.1 - 7.2). Although its use can be limited by the incidence of serious toxicity, injectable gold has an important clinically and statistically significant benefit in the short term treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 27%
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 4 18%
Unspecified 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Unspecified 4 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Linguistics 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Other 5 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#486,123
of 12,196,902 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,310
of 8,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#474,156
of 11,542,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,291
of 8,014 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,196,902 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 11,542,693 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8,014 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.