↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Treatment of adult-onset Still’s disease: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 1,160)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of adult-onset Still’s disease: a review
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2014
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s64951
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pascal Sève, Yvan Jamilloux, Mathieu Gerfaud-Valentin, Thomas Henry

Abstract

Adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) is a rare inflammatory disorder that has been recently classified as a polygenic autoinflammatory disorder. The former classification, based on the disease course, seems to be quite dated. Indeed, there is accumulating evidence that AOSD can be divided into two distinct phenotypes based on cytokine profile, clinical presentation, and outcome, ie, a "systemic" pattern and an "articular" pattern. The first part of this review deals with the treatments that are currently available for AOSD. We then present the different strategies based on the characteristics of the disease according to clinical presentation. To do so, we focus on the two subsets of the disease. Finally, we discuss the management of life-threatening complications of AOSD, along with the therapeutic options during pregnancy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 95 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 19%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 24 25%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 63%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 17 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 30 April 2021.
All research outputs
#1,038,402
of 19,225,771 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#40
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,425
of 306,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,225,771 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 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 96% 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 306,250 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.