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 |
Prevalence of Amyloidosis in Korea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13023-017-0705-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Su Ra Seo, Shin Yi Jang, Ga Yeon Lee, Bareun Choi, Heeran Chun, Eun Jeong Cho, Sung-il Cho |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess in amyloidosis prevalence in Korea between 2006 and 2015. Primary diagnoses related to amyloidosis, regardless of subtype, were collected from the Korean National Health Insurance Service from 2006 through 2015. Overall, the age-standardized prevalence of amyloidosis was 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81, 1.04) persons per 100,000 persons in 2006 and 1.91 (95% CI 1.78, 2.05) persons per 100,000 persons in 2015. This included an increase from 0.43 (95% CI 0.35, 0.51) to 1.04 (95% CI 0.94, 1.14) persons per 100,000 persons in men and from 0.49 (95% CI 0.40, 0.57) to 0.87 (95% CI 0.77, 0.96) persons per 100,000 persons in women. In particular, the age-standardized prevalence of amyloidosis showed a greater increase in patients aged 65 years or older and in patients aged 45-64 years than in patients aged 20-44 years, for both men and women. The overall age-standardized prevalence of amyloidosis was approximately 2 persons per 100,000 persons in 2015. The overall age-standardized prevalence of amyloidosis increased between 2006 and 2015, especially in individuals aged 45-64 and older than 65 years. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 11% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,876,898
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,500
of 2,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,419
of 315,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#17
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 315,600 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.