↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Developments in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: focus on adalimumab

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Developments in the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis: focus on adalimumab
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2013
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s38852
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugh J Freeman

Abstract

In selected patients with moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis who have failed to respond or are poorly responsive to standard pharmacologic forms of treatment with corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents, therapy with a biological agent may be considered. While infliximab is an established tumor necrosis factor blocker and has a longer history of clinical use, adalimumab is an alternative in the same class and may be employed as an initial biological agent, if indicated for treatment of the disease. Adalimumab may have special appeal to stable users able to self-inject in a home setting rather than a centralized infusion center. Short-term adverse effects have been limited, but long-term adverse events can be serious and remain less well defined. Recently, another agent, subcutaneous golimumab, has also been reported to induce and maintain clinical response and remission in clinical trials, but a large experience has not been accumulated to date in clinical practice. In the future, other biological agents with novel and distinct mechanisms of therapeutic action may become available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 22%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 44%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 November 2013.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,835
of 226,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 226,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.