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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis: clinical and therapeutic relevance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arthritis Research & Therapy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13075-017-1493-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nilasha Ghosh, Eric M. Ruderman |
| Abstract |
Current classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) provide for the inclusion of patients with a wide range of presentations and manifestations. While not considered a formal subclassification, patients are often divided into radiographic or nonradiographic axSpA based on the presence or absence of radiographic sacroiliitis. This review will focus on nonradiographic axSpA and will discuss clinical manifestations of disease that distinguish, or in many cases do not distinguish, this entity from other individuals with axSpA. This review will also cover treatment paradigms for nonradiographic axSpA, particularly the use of biologic therapies, where current data suggest that nonradiographic disease should be managed largely the same as radiographic disease, or classical ankylosing spondylitis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 31% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Spain | 2 | 15% |
| Maldives | 1 | 8% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 8% |
| Singapore | 1 | 8% |
| Mexico | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 15% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 53% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,544,232
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#792
of 3,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,042
of 447,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#16
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 447,848 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 65% of its contemporaries.