↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasound in the evaluation of enthesitis: status and perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Ultrasound in the evaluation of enthesitis: status and perspectives
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/ar3516
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frédérique Gandjbakhch, Lene Terslev, Fredrick Joshua, Richard J Wakefield, Esperanza Naredo, Maria Antonietta D'Agostino, OMERACT Ultrasound Task Force

Abstract

An increasing number of studies have applied ultrasound to the evaluation of entheses in spondyloarthritis patients. However, no clear agreement exists on the definition of enthesitis, on the number and choice of entheses to examine and on ultrasound technique, which may all affect the results of the examination. The objectives of this study were to first determine the level of homogeneity in the ultrasound definitions for the principal lesions of enthesitis in the published literature and second, to evaluate the metric properties of ultrasound for detecting enthesitis according to the OMERACT filter.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 28 26%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 21 19%