↓ Skip to main content

A Potential Benefit of “Balanced Diet” for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
A Potential Benefit of “Balanced Diet” for Rheumatoid Arthritis
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00141
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kayo Masuko

Abstract

Although it is largely unknown how diet might modulate rheumatoid arthritis (RA), dietary interventions, including so-called "low-carbohydrate" diets, may be considered for RA patients because of the high incidence of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, it has been shown that restriction or skewed intake of particular nutrient may alter the components of the intestinal flora. Changes to the gut microbiota or dysbiosis may be relevant to the pathogenesis of RA because the gut microbiota is reported to regulate the T cell phenotype and T cell-mediated immunity. RA patients should be advised that a balanced diet that includes appropriate amounts of carbohydrate, especially dietary fiber, is important for maintaining the symbiosis of intestinal flora, which could be beneficial for preventing autoimmunity. The review attempts to focus current findings regarding the suggested relationship between diet-derived carbohydrate, gut microbiota, and the pathogenesis of RA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 27%
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 23 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 31 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 29 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,812,651
of 24,093,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,147
of 6,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,151
of 331,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#65
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,093,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 331,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.