| Title |
Patient experience and practice trends in multiple sclerosis – clinical utility of fingolimod
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Patient preference and adherence, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ppa.s57354 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jong-Mi Lee, May H Han |
| Abstract |
Targeting sphingosine-1-phosphate pathway with orally available immune-modulatory fingolimod (Gilenya™) therapy ameliorates relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) by decreasing relapse rate as shown in FREEDOMS and TRANSFORMS. Fingolimod has also been shown to be superior to interferon-beta therapy as evidenced by TRANSFORMS. Albeit multiple benefits in treatment of multiple sclerosis including high efficacy and ease of administration, potential untoward effects such as cardiotoxicity, risk of infection, and cancer exist, thus mandating careful screening and frequent monitoring of patients undergoing treatment with fingolimod. This review outlines mechanism of action, observations, side effects, and practice guidelines on use of fingolimod in treatment of RRMS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 42 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 41% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 20% |
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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,000
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,718
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.