↓ Skip to main content

The effect of intramuscular interferon beta-1a on spinal cord volume in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Imaging, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 384)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
The effect of intramuscular interferon beta-1a on spinal cord volume in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
Published in
BMC Medical Imaging, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12880-016-0158-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheena L. Dupuy, Fariha Khalid, Brian C. Healy, Sonya Bakshi, Mohit Neema, Shahamat Tauhid, Rohit Bakshi

Abstract

Spinal cord atrophy occurs early in multiple sclerosis (MS) and impacts disability. The therapeutic effect of interferon beta-1a (IFNβ-1a) on spinal cord atrophy in patients with relapsing-remitting (RR) MS has not been explored. We retrospectively identified 16 consecutive patients receiving weekly intramuscular IFNβ-1a for 2 years [baseline age (mean ± SD) 47.7 ± 7.5 years, Expanded Disability Status Scale score median (range) 1.5 (0-2.5), timed 25-foot walk 4.6 ± 0.7 seconds; time on treatment 68.3 ± 59.9 months] and 11 sex- and age-matched normal controls (NC). The spinal cord was imaged at baseline, 1 and 2 years later with 3T MRI. C1-C5 spinal cord volume was measured by an active surface method, from which normalized spinal cord area (SCA) was calculated. SCA showed no change in the MS or NC group over 2 years [mean annualized difference (95 % CI) MS: -0.604 mm(2) (-1.352, 0.144), p = 0.106; NC: -0.360 mm(2) (-1.576, 0.855), p = 0.524]. Between group analysis indicated no differences in on-study SCA change [MS vs. NC; year 1 vs. baseline, mean annualized difference (95 % CI) 0.400 mm(2) (-3.350, 2.549), p = 0.780; year 2 vs. year 1: -1.196 mm(2) (-0.875, 3.266), p = 0.245; year 2 vs. baseline -0.243 mm(2) (-1.120, 1.607), p = 0.712]. Established IFNβ-1a therapy was not associated with ongoing spinal cord atrophy or any difference in the rate of spinal cord volume change in RRMS compared to NC over 2 years. These results may reflect a treatment effect. However, due to sample size and study design, these results should be considered preliminary and await confirmation.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 33%
Researcher 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 42%
Neuroscience 5 21%
Engineering 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,114,211
of 16,140,507 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Imaging
#33
of 384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,065
of 272,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Imaging
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,140,507 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 384 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 272,240 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them