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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The impact of rituximab infusion protocol on the long‐term outcome in anti‐MuSK myasthenia gravis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1002/acn3.564 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elena Cortés‐Vicente, Ricard Rojas‐Garcia, Jordi Díaz‐Manera, Luis Querol, Carlos Casasnovas, Antonio Guerrero‐Sola, José Luis Muñoz‐Blanco, José Eulalio Bárcena‐Llona, Celedonio Márquez‐Infante, Julio Pardo, Eva María Martínez‐Fernández, Mercedes Usón, Pedro Oliva‐Nacarino, Teresa Sevilla, Isabel Illa |
| Abstract |
To evaluate whether the clinical benefit and relapse rates in anti-muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) myasthenia gravis (MG) differ depending on the protocol of rituximab followed. This retrospective multicentre study in patients with MuSK MG compared three rituximab protocols in terms of clinical status, relapse, changes in treatment, and adverse side effects. The primary effectiveness endpoint was clinical relapse requiring a further infusion of rituximab. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and survival analyses were undertaken using Cox proportional-hazards models. Twenty-five patients were included: 11 treated with protocol 4 + 2 (375 mg/m2/4 weeks, then monthly for 2 months), five treated with protocol 1 + 1 (two 1 g doses 2 weeks apart), and nine treated with protocol 4 (375 mg/m2/4 weeks). Mean follow-up was 5.0 years (SD 3.3). Relapse occurred in 18.2%, 80%, and 33.3%, and mean time to relapse was 3.5 (SD 1.5), 1.1 (SD 0.4), and 2.5 (SD 1.4) years, respectively. Based on Kaplan-Meier estimates, patients treated with protocol 4 + 2 had fewer and later relapses than patients treated with the other two protocols (log-rank test P = 0.0001). Patients treated with protocol 1 + 1 had a higher risk of relapse than patients treated with protocol 4 + 2 (HR 112.8, 95% CI, 5.7-2250.4, P = 0.002). Patients treated with protocol 4 showed a trend to a higher risk of relapse than those treated with protocol 4 + 2 (HR 9.2, 95% CI 0.9-91.8, P = 0.059). This study provides class IV evidence that the 4 + 2 rituximab protocol has a lower clinical relapse rate and produces a more durable response than the 1 + 1 and 4 protocols in patients with MuSK MG. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 60% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 30% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 21 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,763,274
of 25,402,528 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
#742
of 1,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,769
of 341,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
#21
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 341,799 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.