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 |
Acute visual loss after ipilimumab treatment for metastatic melanoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40425-016-0170-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Melissa A. Wilson, Kelly Guld, Steven Galetta, Ryan D. Walsh, Julia Kharlip, Madhura Tamhankar, Suzanne McGettigan, Lynn M. Schuchter, Leslie A. Fecher |
| Abstract |
Ipilimumab, a humanized CLTA-4 antibody is a standard therapy in the treatment of advanced melanoma. While ipilimumab provides an overall survival benefit to patients, it can be associated with immune related adverse events (IrAEs). Here we describe a patient treated with ipilimumab who experienced known IrAEs, including hypophysitis, as well as a profound vision loss due to optic neuritis. There are rare reports of optic neuritis occurring as an adverse event associated with ipilimumab treatment. Furthermore, the patient experienced multiple complications from high dose steroids used to manage his IrAEs. This case highlights the need for recognition of atypical immune mediated processes associated with newer checkpoint inhibitor therapies including ipilimumab. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 49% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,794,664
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#769
of 3,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,389
of 324,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
#12
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 324,004 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.