↓ Skip to main content

Oral epigallocatechin-3-gallate for treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: a multicentre, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Oral epigallocatechin-3-gallate for treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: a multicentre, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0411-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Chiaverini, Coralie Roger, Eric Fontas, Emmanuelle Bourrat, Eva Bourdon-Lanoy, Christine Labrèze, Juliette Mazereeuw, Pierre Vabres, Christine Bodemer, Jean-Philippe Lacour, Chiaverini, Christine, Roger, Coralie, Fontas, Eric, Bourrat, Emmanuelle, Bourdon-Lanoy, Eva, Labrèze, Christine, Mazereeuw, Juliette, Vabres, Pierre, Bodemer, Christine, Lacour, Jean-Philippe

Abstract

Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is a rare genodermatosis with severe blistering. No curative treatment is available. Scientific data indicated that epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), a green tea extract, might improve the phenotype of RDEB patients. In a multicentre, randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, we evaluated a 4-month oral EGCG treatment regimen in 17 RDEB patients. We found that EGCG treatment was not more effective than placebo in modified intention to treat and per protocol analysis (n = 16; p = 0.78 and n = 10; p = 1 respectively). Tolerance was good. Specific organizational and technical difficulties of controlled randomized double-blind trials in EB patients are discussed. US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trial Register ( NCT00951964 ).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 30%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Chemistry 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 March 2016.
All research outputs
#1,612,521
of 7,452,554 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#276
of 1,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,828
of 275,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#24
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,452,554 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,051 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 275,906 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.