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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
New horizons and perspectives in the treatment of osteoarthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arthritis Research & Therapy, October 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1186/ar2462 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francis Berenbaum |
| Abstract |
Osteoarthritis (OA) is increasingly prevalent worldwide and is associated with a significant economic burden. Despite the increasing number of patients with OA, treatments to manage the condition remain symptomatic, designed to control pain, and improve function and quality of life while limiting adverse events. Both the EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) and the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) issued new guidelines in 2007 and 2008 recommending a combination of nonpharmacological and pharmacological modalities to manage OA effectively. Because of gastrointestinal risks (including ulcer complications) and cardiovascular risks (including hypertension and thrombotic events associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]), these guidelines propose acetaminophen as the first choice anti-inflammatory agents. However, NSAIDs are considered to be more effective than acetaminophen for relief of pain. Given the efficacy, safety, and tolerability issues associated with NSAIDs, development of new agents to manage the pain associated with arthritis but without the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal adverse events remains a priority. This review considers current recommendations for the treatment of OA, the most recent evidence on the cardiovascular risks associated with current NSAID treatments, and the potential of newer anti-inflammatory agents with improved benefit-risk profiles. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 April 2015.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,710
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,093
of 103,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 103,291 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.