↓ Skip to main content

Back pain and health status in patients with clinically diagnosed ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthritis: a cross-sectional population-based study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Back pain and health status in patients with clinically diagnosed ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis and other spondyloarthritis: a cross-sectional population-based study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-0960-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulf Lindström, Ann Bremander, Emma Haglund, Stefan Bergman, Ingemar F. Petersson, Lennart T. H. Jacobsson

Abstract

In the broader spectrum of back pain, inflammatory back pain (IBP) is a symptom that may indicate axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency of current IBP, as a hallmark sign of possible axial SpA, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and other SpA and to compare self-reported health between the groups with current IBP. Five-thousand seven hundred seventy one patients identified in the regional healthcare register of the most southern county of Sweden, diagnosed at least once by a physician (based on ICD-codes) with any type of SpA in 2003-2007, were sent a postal survey in 2009. Patients with current IBP were identified, based on self-reported back pain ≥3 months in the preceding year and fulfilling the Berlin criteria for IBP. The frequencies of IBP in AS, PsA and other SpA (including the remaining subgroups of SpA) were determined, and the groups were compared with regard to patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The frequency and proportion of patients with current IBP in AS, PsA and other SpA were 319 (43 %), 409 (31 %) and 282 (39 %) respectively, within the responders to the survey (N = 2785). The proportion was statistically higher in AS, compared to PsA (p < 0.001), but not for AS compared to other SpA (p = 0.112). PsA and other SpA, with current IBP, had similar (BASFI, EQ-5D, patients global assessment, fatigue, spinal pain) or worse (BASDAI) PROMs, compared to AS with current IBP. PsA with current IBP received pharmacological, anti-rheumatic, treatment more frequently than AS with current IBP, while AS and other SpA received treatment to a similar degree. The proportion of patients with current IBP was substantial in all three groups and health reports in the non-AS groups were similar or worse compared to the AS group supporting the severity of IBP in these non-AS SpA groups. These findings may indicate a room for improvement concerning detection of axial disease within different subtypes of non-AS SpA, and possibly also for treatment.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Other 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 17 28%
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 03 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,362,070
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,458
of 4,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,423
of 297,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#55
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 297,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.