↓ Skip to main content

Classification and Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, September 2018
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 (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Classification and Outcome Measures for Psoriatic Arthritis
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ying Ying Leung, Alexis Ogdie, Ana-Maria Orbai, William Tillett, Laura C. Coates, Vibeke Strand, Philip Mease, Dafna D. Gladman

Abstract

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis with multiple manifestations: peripheral/axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, psoriasis, and nail involvement. From having an agreed upon classification criteria in 2006, the assessment of PsA has advanced from uncertainties to development and validation of numerous specific outcome measures. The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic arthritis (GRAPPA) has spearheaded the development of a core domain set and is now working on a core outcome measurement set to standardize outcome measures for PsA, that will provide guidance for use of instruments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS). This article summarizes and updates these work processes to improve assessment of this multisystem complex rheumatologic disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 16%
Student > Master 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 26 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 29 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#3,341,455
of 23,915,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#881
of 6,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,136
of 339,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#17
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,915,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. 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 339,209 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.