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 |
Is urate crystal precipitation a predictor of cardiovascular risk in hyperuricemic patients? A Danish cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arthritis Research & Therapy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13075-015-0822-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kasper Søltoft Larsen, Anton Pottegård, Hanne Lindegaard, Jesper Hallas |
| Abstract |
There is increasing evidence that both hyperuricemia and gout increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Whether urate crystal precipitation confers a particular risk above what is already inherent in having hyperuricemia is not well established. We conducted this cohort study to establish whether the presence of monosodium urate crystal precipitation per se is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases among hyperuricemic patients. We identified hyperuricemic individuals who had joint fluid examinations for urate crystals. Individuals with intra-articular urate crystals were matched by propensity score to individuals without crystals and compared with respect to a composite cardiovascular endpoint. Included in the propensity score model were potential confounders retrieved from four different health care registries. We identified 862 hyperuricemic patients having urate crystal examination. After propensity score matching, we could include 317 patients with urate crystals matched 1:1 to patients without urate crystals. We found no difference between the two groups with respect to cardiovascular outcomes (hazard ratios = 0.86; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.52 - 1.43) or death (hazard ratio 0.74; CI 0.45 - 1.21). The presence of urate crystal precipitations does not seem to confer a particular cardiovascular risk in hyperuricemic patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 November 2015.
All research outputs
#2,485,328
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#456
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,471
of 295,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#13
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 295,440 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.