↓ Skip to main content

Can racial disparities in optimal gout treatment be reduced? evidence from a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
Can racial disparities in optimal gout treatment be reduced? evidence from a randomized trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder A Singh

Abstract

There is a disproportionate burden of gout in African-Americans in the U.S. due to a higher disease prevalence and lower likelihood of receiving urate-lowering therapy (ULT), compared to Caucasians. There is an absence of strong data as to whether the response to ULT differs by race/ethnicity. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders recently published a secondary analyses of the CONFIRMS trial, a large randomized controlled, double-blind trial of 2,269 gout patients. The authors reported that the likelihood of achieving the primary study efficacy end-point of achieving serum urate<6 mg/dl was similar between African-Americans and Caucasians, for all three treatment arms (Febuxostat 40 mg and 80 mg and allopurinol 300/200 mg). More importantly, rates were similar in subgroups of patients with mild or moderate renal insufficiency. Adverse event rates were similar, as were the rates of gout flares. These findings constitute a convincing evidence to pursue aggressive ULT in gout patients, regardless of race/ethnicity. This approach will likely help to narrow the documented racial disparities in gout care. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/13/15.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 33%
Other 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 February 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,230
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,172
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,209
of 247,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#32
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 247,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.