| Title |
Increased risk of venous thromboembolism associated with polymyositis and dermatomyositis: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s157085 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yanqing Li, Peihong Wang, Lei Li, Fei Wang, Yuxiu Liu |
| Abstract |
Polymyositis and dermatomyositis (PM/DM) have been implicated in the development of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Previous studies investigating the association between PM/DM and VTE risk had yielded inconsistent findings. The aim of this study was to precisely estimate this association by meta-analysis of all available publications. Two investigators independently performed a comprehensive literature search in databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The strength for the association was weighed by pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Stratified analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed for further analysis. Six studies including 9,045 patients with PM/DM were analyzed. The pooled OR suggested that inflammatory myositis was associated with increased risk of VTE (OR =4.31, 95% CI: 2.55-7.29, P<0.001). Besides, significantly elevated risk of VTE was related with PM and DM, respectively (for PM: OR =6.87, 95% CI: 4.12-11.46, P<0.001; for DM: OR =11.59, 95% CI: 6.54-20.55, P<0.001). In addition, inflammatory myositis could increase the risk of DVT (OR =4.85, 95% CI: 1.38-17.12, P<0.05) and PE (OR =4.74, 95% CI: 2.18-10.30, P<0.05). Sensitivity analysis did not materially alter the pooled results. Our study shows strong evidence that patients with inflammatory myositis have an increased risk of VTE. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| Singapore | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 26% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,302,500
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#301
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,084
of 450,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#3
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 450,901 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.