↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of treatments for sacroiliitis in spondyloarthropathy using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium Canada scoring system

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Evaluation of treatments for sacroiliitis in spondyloarthropathy using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium Canada scoring system
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13075-016-0916-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Cui, Jinping Zheng, Xiao Zhang, Hui Zeng, Riqiang Luo

Abstract

In this study, the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium Canada (SPARCC) scoring method was used to compare treatment methods in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), a form of sacroiliitis. MRI abnormalities in bone marrow edema (BME) were compared before and after treatment in order to compare the efficacy of anti-TNF-α and DMARD, alone or in combination, as treatments for sacroiliitis. Fifty-six Chinese patients with axial SpA (mean age 22.6 years) were recruited. Patients were divided into three groups according to different treatments (anti-TNF-α alone vs. DMARDs alone vs. combined anti-TNF-α and DMARDs). MRI examinations were performed before and after treatment. The SPARCC score, clinically relevant AS Disease Activity (ASDAS) indices, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were analyzed. After treatment, ASDAS and SPARCC scores, ESR, and CRP were significantly improved (P < 0.05) in the anti-TNF-α monotherapy and combination groups; however, there were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in clinical disease activity and radiological inflammation of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) in patients in the DMARDs alone group. SPARCC showed a correlation with ASDAS score pre-treatment, but not post-treatment. Furthermore, there were significant changes (P < 0.05) in these patients with axial SpA after only 3 months of treatment. Follow-up studies of patients who continued therapy for 4-6 months and 9-12 months revealed statistically significant differences from baseline (P < 0.05). SPARCC can be used to assess severity of disease pre-treatment. Anti-TNF-α treatment resulted in effective reduction of disease activity and BME of SIJ after 3 months of therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 25%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,835,823
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,028
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,652
of 406,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#43
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 406,420 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.