↓ Skip to main content

The “myth” of loss of angiogenesis in systemic sclerosis: a pivotal early pathogenetic process or just a late unavoidable event?

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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 “myth” of loss of angiogenesis in systemic sclerosis: a pivotal early pathogenetic process or just a late unavoidable event?
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13075-017-1370-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Matucci-Cerinic, Mirko Manetti, Cosimo Bruni, Ines Chora, Silvia Bellando-Randone, Gemma Lepri, Amato De Paulis, Serena Guiducci

Abstract

Systemic sclerosis is considered a disease dominated by a "loss of angiogenesis", although in its early phases evidence indicates a disturbed angiogenic response only. In fact, microvascular changes are primarily due to endothelial cell injury, triggering downstream significant enlargement of the capillary in an inflammatory environment, followed by capillary rupture (microhemorrhages). Subsequent pro-angiogenic efforts lead to an aberrant angiogenesis and, eventually, to a total loss of vessel repair and regeneration (loss of angiogenesis). This clearly suggests that the pathogenetic process has a steady progression: from an early excessive pro-angiogenesis, to an aberrant microvascular regeneration, then ending with a late loss of angiogenesis. Herein, we suggest the loss of angiogenesis should not be considered as an overall "myth" characterizing systemic sclerosis but as a very late event of the vascular pathogenesis. Future research should be oriented essentially on the earlier phases dominated by excessive pro-angiogenesis and microvascular aberration.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 13 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,097,241
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#2,192
of 3,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,079
of 326,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#44
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 326,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.