↓ Skip to main content

On the predictive utility of animal models of osteoarthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2015
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

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
On the predictive utility of animal models of osteoarthritis
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0747-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Marie Malfait, Christopher B. Little

Abstract

Animal models of osteoarthritis are extensively used for investigating disease pathways and for preclinical testing of novel therapies. Their predictive utility, however, has often been questioned, mainly because preclinical efficacy of novel therapeutics is poorly translated in clinical trials. In the current narrative review, we consider the preclinical models that were used to support undertaking clinical trials for disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs, and compare outcomes between clinical and preclinical studies. We discuss this in light of the 1999 Food and Drug Administration draft guidelines for industry for use in the development of drugs, devices, and biological products intended for the treatment of osteoarthritis, which raised five considerations on the usefulness of osteoarthritis models. We systematically discuss what has been learnt regarding these five points since 1999, with emphasis on replicating distinct risk factors and subtypes of human osteoarthritis, and on comprehensive evaluation of the disease in animals, including pathology of all joint tissues, biomarker analysis, and assessment of pain and joint function. Finally, we discuss lessons learnt and propose some recommendations for how the evidence from preclinical research might be strengthened with a view to improving success in clinical translation.

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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 17%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Master 22 12%
Other 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 40 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 17%
Engineering 20 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 8%
Neuroscience 12 7%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 52 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#2,289
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,052
of 280,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#47
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 280,720 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 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.