↓ Skip to main content

Histologic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Histologic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011256.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahmoud H Mosli, Claire E Parker, Sigrid A Nelson, Kenneth A Baker, John K MacDonald, GY Zou, Brian G Feagan, Reena Khanna, Barrett G Levesque, Vipul Jairath

Abstract

Disease activity can be determined using clinical, endoscopic or histologic criteria in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Persistent disease activity is associated with poor outcomes. Histologic disease activity has been shown to be associated with relapse, colectomy and colorectal cancer. The ability to objectively evaluate microscopic disease activity using histology is important for both clinical practice and clinical trials. However, the operating properties of the currently available histologic indices remain unclear. A systematic review was undertaken to identify and evaluate the development and operating characteristics of histologic disease activity indices used to assess disease activity in people with ulcerative colitis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and the Cochrane IBD Review Group Specialized Trials Register from inception to 2 December 2016 for applicable studies. There were no language or document type restrictions. Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated a histologic index in patients with UC were considered for inclusion. Eligible patients were adults (> 18 years), diagnosed with UC using conventional clinical, radiographic, endoscopic and histologic criteria. Two authors (MHM and CEP) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the literature search. A standardized form was used to assess eligibility of trials for inclusion and for data extraction.Two authors (MHM and CEP) independently extracted and recorded data, which included the number of patients enrolled, number of patients per treatment arm, patient characteristics including age and gender distribution, and the name of the histologic index. Outcomes (i.e. intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, content validity, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness, and feasibility) were recorded for each trial. In total, 126 reports describing 30 scoring indices were identified through the screening process. Eleven of the 30 scoring indices have undergone some form of index validation. Intra-rater reliability was assessed for eight scoring indices. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated for all 11 of the scoring indices. Three of the indices underwent content validation. Two of the included scoring indices assessed criterion validity. Six of the included scoring indices explored content validity. Two of the included scoring indices were tested for responsiveness. The Nancy Index and the Robarts Histopathology Index have undergone the most validation in that four operating properties including reliability, content validity, construct validity (hypothesis testing) and criterion validity have been tested. However, none of the currently available histologic scoring indices have been fully validated. In order to determine the optimal endpoint for histologic healing in UC, more research is required. The optimal index would need to be fully validated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Unspecified 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Unspecified 13 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 9 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 28 May 2017.
All research outputs
#2,914,297
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,459
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,923
of 266,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 266,228 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.