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 |
Associated factors and comorbidities in patients with pyoderma gangrenosum in Germany: a retrospective multicentric analysis in 259 patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-8-136 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Philipp Al Ghazal, Katharina Herberger, Jörg Schaller, Anke Strölin, Norman-Philipp Hoff, Tobias Goerge, Hannelore Roth, Eberhard Rabe, Sigrid Karrer, Regina Renner, Jan Maschke, Thomas Horn, Julia Hepp, Sabine Eming, Uwe Wollina, Markus Zutt, Isabell Sick, Benno Splieth, Dorothea Dill, Joachim Klode, Joachim Dissemond |
| Abstract |
Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rarely diagnosed ulcerative neutrophilic dermatosis with unknown origin that has been poorly characterized in clinical studies so far. Consequently there have been significant discussions about its associated factors and comorbidities. The aim of our multicenter study was to analyze current data from patients in dermatologic wound care centers in Germany in order to describe associated factors and comorbidities in patients with PG. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 11 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 11 | 17% |
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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,806,443
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#372
of 2,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,687
of 197,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 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 2,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. 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 197,573 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.