↓ Skip to main content

Histologic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn’s disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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 Crohn’s disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012351.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregor Novak, Claire E Parker, Rish K Pai, John K MacDonald, Brian G Feagan, William J Sandborn, Geert D'Haens, Vipul Jairath, Reena Khanna

Abstract

Histologic assessment of mucosal disease activity has been increasingly used in clinical trials of treatment for Crohn's disease. However, the operating properties of the currently existing histologic scoring indices remain unclear. A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of available histologic disease activity indices in Crohn's disease. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 20 July 2016 were supplemented by manual reviews of bibliographies and abstracts submitted to major gastroenterology meetings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation). Any study design (e.g. randomised controlled trial, cohort study, case series) that evaluated a histologic disease activity index in patients with Crohn's disease was considered for inclusion. Study participants included adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with Crohn's disease using conventional clinical, radiographic or endoscopic criteria. Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the literature search. The full text of potentially relevant citations were reviewed for inclusion and the study investigators were contacted as needed for clarification. Any disagreements regarding study eligibility were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author.Two authors independently extracted and recorded data using a standard form. The following data were recorded from each eligible study: number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics: age and gender distribution; description of histologic disease activity index utilized; and outcomes such as content validity, construct validity, criterion validity, responsiveness, intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability, and feasibility. Sixteen reports of 14 studies describing 14 different numerical histological indices fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Inter-rater reliability was assessed in one study. For the Naini and Cortina Score, estimates of correlation were 'almost perfect', ranging from r = 0.94 to 0.96. The methodological quality of this study with respect to reliability was 'good'.With respect to validity, correlation estimates between various histological scoring systems and Crohn's disease activity as measured by objective markers of inflammation (including C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, fecal calprotectin and fecal lactoferrin); endoscopic disease activity scores; clinical disease activity scores; and quality of life questionnaires were reported. Comparisons between histologic scoring indices and endoscopic scoring indices ranged from no correlation to 'substantial' (r = 0.779). The methodological quality of the studies that explored validity ranged form 'poor' to 'good'.Responsiveness data were available in seven studies. After subjects were administered a treatment of known efficacy, statistically significant change in the index score was demonstrated in five studies with respect to six indices. Two studies failed to indicate whether there was statistically significant change in the index score post-treatment. With regard to methodological quality, six of the studies were rated as 'poor' and one of the studies was rated as 'fair'.Feasibility was assessed by one study. The Naini and Cortina Score was shown to be simple to use and feasible for every given case. Currently there is no fully validated histological scoring index for evaluation of Crohn's disease activity. Development of a validated histological scoring index for Crohn's disease is a clinical and research priority.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 22 27%

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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,688,856
of 13,532,333 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,568
of 10,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,027
of 266,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#188
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,532,333 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 266,310 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 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.