↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for mucous membrane pemphigoid and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Interventions for mucous membrane pemphigoid and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gudula Kirtschig, Dedee F Murrell, Fenella Wojnarowska, Nonhlanhla P Khumalo

Abstract

Mucous membrane pemphigoid and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita are acquired autoimmune blistering diseases of the skin. Although they are rare, both can result in scarring of mucous membranes, which may lead to blindness and life threatening respiratory complications. To assess the effects of treatments for mucous membrane pemphigoid and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of patients with MMP or EBA were identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception to March 2000. The Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) were last examined in February 2002. The bibliographies from identified studies were searched. The author who has conducted clinical trials in the field was contacted to identify unpublished trials. RCTs involving participants of any ages, and with a diagnosis confirmed by immunofluorescence. Where no RCTs were located, studies with other designs were considered. Data were extracted from all included studies using a defined electronic data extraction protocol. Two reviewers evaluated the studies in terms of the inclusion criteria. The data from identified RCTs was extracted independently by three reviewers and subsequently checked for discrepancies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with each other and the fourth reviewer. Meta-analysis was not appropriate due to a lack of data. We found two small RCTs of MMP, both conducted in patients with severe eye involvement. The same author conducted both trials. In the first trial cyclophosphamide was superior to prednisone after six months of treatment; all 12 patients responded well to cyclophosphamide versus a good response in only five of 12 patients treated with prednisone (relative risk 2.40, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 4.69). In the second trial all 20 patients treated with cyclophosphamide responded well to it after three months of treatment, but only 14 of 20 patients responded to the treatment with dapsone (relative risk 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.90). We were not able to identify a RCT of therapeutic interventions in EBA. Thirty reports of uncontrolled studies of treatment for MMP involving five or more patients and 11 reports of treatment for EBA involving two or more patients were found, but were difficult to interpret. There is limited evidence (from two small trials) that severe ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid responds best to treatment with cyclophosphamide combined with corticosteroids, and that mild to moderate disease in most patients seems effectively suppressed by treatment with dapsone. It is difficult to make any treatment recommendations for EBA in the absence of reliable evidence sources.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 19 22%

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 19 June 2020.
All research outputs
#5,007,849
of 15,872,836 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,756
of 11,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,968
of 269,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,872,836 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 269,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.