↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Optimizing the benefit of multiple sclerosis therapy: the importance of treatment adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Optimizing the benefit of multiple sclerosis therapy: the importance of treatment adherence
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, January 2010
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s8230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Patti

Abstract

Poor treatment adherence is problematic in many therapy areas, including multiple sclerosis (MS). Several immunomodulatory drugs are available for the treatment of MS, all of which require frequent parenteral administration. Current first-line therapies are two formulations of interferon (IFN) beta-1a, one of IFN beta-1b, and one of glatiramer acetate. Discontinuation of treatment is common, particularly in the first few months after initiation. Although the true effect of poor adherence to MS therapy is not known, it is likely to lead to a fall in treatment efficacy. Many factors influence a patient's adherence to treatment, including the patient's MS subtype and disability level, cognitive impairment resulting from MS, perceived lack of efficacy of the prescribed medication, and adverse events associated with MS therapy. This article summarizes the barriers to adherence to MS therapies, and discusses patient management strategies that can be employed to encourage adherence. Future advances in the field of MS treatment will be explored, including the development of orally administered drugs, which may enhance adherence.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 35%
Psychology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 15 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2013.
All research outputs
#5,416,453
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#404
of 1,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,078
of 162,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#8
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 162,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 63% of its contemporaries.