↓ Skip to main content

Bench to bedside review of myositis autoantibodies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Molecular Allergy, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 214)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Bench to bedside review of myositis autoantibodies
Published in
Clinical and Molecular Allergy, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12948-018-0084-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boaz Palterer, Gianfranco Vitiello, Alessia Carraresi, Maria Grazia Giudizi, Daniele Cammelli, Paola Parronchi

Abstract

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies represent a heterogeneous group of autoimmune diseases with systemic involvement. Even though numerous specific autoantibodies have been recognized, they have not been included, with the only exception of anti-Jo-1, into the 2017 Classification Criteria, thus perpetuating a clinical-serologic gap. The lack of homogeneous grouping based on the antibody profile deeply impacts the diagnostic approach, therapeutic choices and prognostic stratification of these patients. This review is intended to highlight the comprehensive scenario regarding myositis-related autoantibodies, from the molecular characterization and biological significance to target antigens, from the detection tools, with a special focus on immunofluorescence patterns on HEp-2 cells, to their relative prevalence and ethnic diversity, from the clinical presentation to prognosis. If, on the one hand, a notable body of literature is present, on the other data are fragmented, retrospectively based and collected from small case series, so that they do not sufficiently support the decision-making process (i.e. therapeutic approach) into the clinics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 15%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 47%
Immunology and Microbiology 13 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,471,655
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#26
of 214 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,361
of 332,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Molecular Allergy
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 214 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 332,611 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them