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 |
Absence of Scleroderma pattern at nail fold capillaroscopy valuable in the exclusion of Scleroderma in unselected patients with Raynaud’s Phenomenon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-016-1206-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lesley-Anne Bissell, Giuseppina Abignano, Paul Emery, Francesco Del Galdo, Maya H. Buch |
| Abstract |
To report the predictive value of nail-fold capillaroscopy (NFC) patterns of vasculopathy for systemic sclerosis (Scleroderma; SSc) in an unselected cohort of patients with Raynaud's phenomenon (RP). Patients referred to a tertiary SSc clinic with RP were evaluated by light/video-NFC. Clinical diagnosis, details and serology were recorded. Primary RP was defined as RP with no features of connective tissue disease (CTD)/antibody. NFC patterns were determined: normal, non-specific, 'early', 'active' or 'late' SSc patterns. Fulfilment of the VEDOSS or 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria for SSc was determined following NFC assessment. Three hundred forty-seven patients were referred: mean (SD) age 47 (15.2) years. On clinical review, 54 (16 %) did not have RP, 69 (20 %) had primary RP, 52 (15 %) had SSc and 172 (50 %) had secondary RP. NFC SSc pattern was detected in 80 (23 %) patients; 37/52 with SSc, 30/172 with secondary RP, 9/69 with primary RP and 4/54 with no RP. For identifying patients who met either the VEDOSS or 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria for SSc, detection of a SSc NFC pattern had a sensitivity of 71 %, specificity 95 %, positive predictive value 84 % and negative predictive value 90 %. The absence of SSc NFC pattern in patients with RP or suspected CTD is very valuable in the exclusion of SSc. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,830,243
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#578
of 4,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,728
of 344,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#14
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. 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 344,191 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.