The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Management of difficult-to-treat patients with ulcerative colitis: focus on adalimumab
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s33197 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandro Armuzzi, Daniela Pugliese, Olga Maria Nardone, Luisa Guidi |
| Abstract |
The treatment of ulcerative colitis has changed over the last decade, with the introduction of biological drugs. This article reviews the currently available therapies for ulcerative colitis and the specific use of these therapies in the management of patients in different settings, particularly the difficult-to-treat patients. The focus of this review is on adalimumab, which has recently obtained approval by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration, for use in treating adult patients with moderate-to-severe, active ulcerative colitis, who are refractory, intolerant, or who have contraindications to conventional therapy, including corticosteroids and thiopurines. Since the results emerging from the pivotal trials have been subject to some debate, the aim of this review was to summarize all available data on the use of adalimumab in ulcerative colitis, focusing also on a retrospective series of real-life experiences. Taken together, the current evidence indicates that adalimumab is effective for the treatment of patients with different types of ulcerative colitis, including biologically naïve and difficult-to-treat patients. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 44% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,900,311
of 26,316,305 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#153
of 2,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,152
of 215,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#5
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,316,305 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 215,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.