↓ Skip to main content

Pilot study comparing the Childhood Arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Rheumatology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 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
Pilot study comparing the Childhood Arthritis & Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Consensus Treatment Plans
Published in
Pediatric Rheumatology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12969-017-0157-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yukiko Kimura, Sriharsha Grevich, Timothy Beukelman, Esi Morgan, Peter A. Nigrovic, Kelly Mieszkalski, T Brent Graham, Maria Ibarra, Norman Ilowite, Marisa Klein-Gitelman, Karen Onel, Sampath Prahalad, Marilynn Punaro, Sarah Ringold, Dana Toib, Heather Van Mater, Jennifer E. Weiss, Pamela F. Weiss, Laura E. Schanberg, for the CARRA Registry Investigators

Abstract

To assess the feasibility of studying the comparative effectiveness of the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) using an observational registry. Untreated systemic JIA patients enrolled in the CARRA Registry were begun on one of 4 CTPs chosen by the treating physician and patient/family (glucocorticoid [GC] alone; methotrexate [MTX] ± GC; IL1 inhibitor [IL1i] ± GC; IL6 inhibitor [IL6i] ± GC). The primary outcome of clinical inactive disease (CID) without current GC use was assessed at 9 months. clinicaltrials.gov NCT01697254; first registered 9/28/12 (retrospectively enrolled). Thirty patients were enrolled at 13 sites; eight patients were started on a non-biologic CTP (2 GC, 6 MTX) and 22 patients on a biologic CTP (12 IL1i, 10 IL6i) at disease onset. Demographic and disease features were similar between CTP groups. CTP choice appeared to segregate by site preference. CID off GC was achieved by 37% (11 of 30) including 11/22 (50%) starting a biologic CTP compared to 0/8 starting a non-biologic CTP (p = 0.014). There were four serious adverse events: two infections, one appendicitis and one macrophage activation syndrome. The CARRA systemic JIA CTP pilot study demonstrated successful implementation of CTPs using the CARRA registry infrastructure. Having demonstrated feasibility, a larger study using CTP response to better determine the relative effectiveness of treatments for new-onset systemic JIA is now underway.

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 10 15%
Other 8 12%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 30 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,680,078
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Rheumatology
#477
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,556
of 310,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Rheumatology
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.