↓ Skip to main content

Measuring disease activity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: the challenges of administrative burden and responsiveness to patient concerns in clinical research

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 2,420)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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
Measuring disease activity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus: the challenges of administrative burden and responsiveness to patient concerns in clinical research
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0702-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamal Mikdashi, Ola Nived

Abstract

Measuring lupus disease activity accurately remains a challenging and demanding task given the complex multi-system nature of lupus, an illness known for its variability between patients and within the same patient over time. Many have attempted to define what disease activity means and how it should be measured, and several instruments were devised for a standardized assessment of disease activity and outcome domains in clinical research. Several of these measuring tools have been able to detect clinical improvement and have demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change in observational studies, and some were found to be useful in randomized controlled trials. However, several failed clinical trials have confronted these metrics, as they were not intended for clinical trials. The Outcome Measures Rheumatology group and the US Food and Drug Administration have recommended using measures of disease activity, cumulative organ damage, health-related quality of life, and adverse events as outcomes of interest. Composite responder indices that determine disease global improvement, ensure no significant worsening in unaffected organ systems, and include a physician's global assessment have been used in randomized clinical trials. Yet unmet therapeutic needs were further challenged by the complex content and psychometric information of the updated instruments, including increased administrative burden associated with demanding training and cost of instruments, and small effect size associated with responsiveness to patient concerns. Nevertheless, with the progress of novel targeted therapy, refining the disease activity metrics is essential. Selection of the disease activity endpoints which is a defining aspect of clinical trial design must be tailored to the outcome of interest and measured by a reliably rated scale characterized by minimal administrative burden. An optimal scale should be simple and practical and incorporate elements of patient concerns.

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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 209 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 18%
Other 24 11%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 49 23%
Unknown 33 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 40 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 22 July 2019.
All research outputs
#372,776
of 15,628,104 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#26
of 2,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,610
of 236,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,628,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 236,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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