↓ Skip to main content

Comparison and evaluation of lupus nephritis response criteria in lupus activity indices and clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, April 2015
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Comparison and evaluation of lupus nephritis response criteria in lupus activity indices and clinical trials
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0621-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin M Corapi, Mary Anne Dooley, William F Pendergraft

Abstract

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a systemic autoimmune disease with diverse manifestations. Although the approval of new therapies includes only one agent in 50 years, a number of promising new drugs are in development. Lupus nephritis is a dreaded complication of SLE as it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Advancing the treatment of lupus nephritis requires well-designed clinical trials and this can be challenging in SLE. The major obstacles involve identifying the correct population of patients to enroll and ensuring that a clinically appropriate and patient-centered endpoint is being measured. In this review, we will first discuss the clinical utility of endpoints chosen to represent lupus nephritis in global disease activity scales. Second, we will review completed and active trials focused on lupus nephritis and discuss the endpoints chosen. There are many important lessons to be learned from existing assessment tools and clinical trials. Reviewing these points will help ensure that future efforts will yield meaningful disease activity measures and well-designed clinical trials to advance our understanding of lupus management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 13%
Other 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 25 26%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 66%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 17 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,808,249
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#1,026
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,597
of 279,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#29
of 87 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 81st 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 69% 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 279,301 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 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.