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 |
Head-to-head comparison of the safety of tocilizumab and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients (RA) in clinical practice: results from the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety (REAL) registry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arthritis Research & Therapy, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13075-015-0583-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ryoko Sakai, Soo-Kyung Cho, Toshihiro Nanki, Kaori Watanabe, Hayato Yamazaki, Michi Tanaka, Ryuji Koike, Yoshiya Tanaka, Kazuyoshi Saito, Shintaro Hirata, Koichi Amano, Hayato Nagasawa, Takayuki Sumida, Taichi Hayashi, Takahiko Sugihara, Hiroaki Dobashi, Shinsuke Yasuda, Tetsuji Sawada, Kazuhiko Ezawa, Atsuhisa Ueda, Takao Fujii, Kiyoshi Migita, Nobuyuki Miyasaka, Masayoshi Harigai, for the REAL Study Group |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to directly compare the safety of tocilizumab (TCZ) and TNF inhibitors (TNFIs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in clinical practice. This prospective cohort study included RA patients starting TCZ [TCZ group, n = 302, 224.68 patient-years (PY)] or TNFIs [TNFI group, n = 304, 231.01 PY] from 2008 to 2011 in the registry of Japanese RA patients on biologics for long-term safety registry. We assessed types and incidence rates (IRs) of serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) during the first year of treatment. Risks of the biologics for SAEs or SIs were calculated using the Cox regression hazard analysis. Patients in the TCZ group had longer disease duration (P <0.001), higher disease activity (P = 0.019) and more frequently used concomitant corticosteroids (P <0.001) than those in the TNFI group. The crude IR (/100 PY) of SIs [TCZ 10.68 vs. TNFI 3.03; IR ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]), 3.53 (1.52 to 8.18)], but not SAEs [21.36 vs. 14.72; 1.45 (0.94 to 2.25)], was significantly higher in the TCZ group compared with the TNFI group. However, after adjusting for covariates using the Cox regression hazard analysis, treatment with TCZ was not associated with higher risk for SAEs [hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19] or SIs (HR 2.23, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.37). The adjusted risks for SAEs and SIs were not significantly different between TCZ and TNFIs, indicating an influence of clinical characteristics of the patients on the safety profile of the biologics in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Professor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 21% |
| Unknown | 23 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 26 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,148,037
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#377
of 3,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,176
of 278,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#4
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 278,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 94% of its contemporaries.