↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

A 4-year non-randomized comparative phase-IV study of early rheumatoid arthritis: integrative anthroposophic medicine for patients with preference against DMARDs versus conventional therapy including…

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2018
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 (#34 of 1,074)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
A 4-year non-randomized comparative phase-IV study of early rheumatoid arthritis: integrative anthroposophic medicine for patients with preference against DMARDs versus conventional therapy including DMARDs for patients without preference
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s145221
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harald J Hamre, Van N Pham, Christian Kern, Rolf Rau, Jörn Klasen, Ute Schendel, Lars Gerlach, Attyla Drabik, Ludger Simon

Abstract

While disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are a mainstay of therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), some patients with early RA refuse DMARDs. In anthroposophic medicine (AM), a treatment strategy for early RA without DMARDs has been developed. Preliminary data suggest that RA symptoms and inflammatory markers can be reduced under AM, without DMARDs. Two hundred and fifty-one self-selected patients aged 16-70 years, starting treatment for RA of <3 years duration, without prior DMARD therapy, participated in a prospective, non-randomized, comparative Phase IV study. C-patients were treated in clinics offering conventional therapy including DMARDs, while A-patients had chosen treatment in anthroposophic clinics, without DMARDs. Both groups received corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Primary outcomes were intensity of RA symptoms measured by self-rating on visual analog scales, C-reactive protein, radiological progression, study withdrawals, serious adverse events (SAE), and adverse drug reactions in months 0-48. The groups were similar in most baseline characteristics, while A-patients had longer disease duration (mean 15.1 vs 10.8 months, p<0.0001), slightly more bone destruction, and a much higher proportion of women (94.6% vs 69.7%, p<0.0001). In months 0-12, corticosteroids were used by 45.7% and 81.6% (p<0.0001) and NSAIDs by 52.8% and 68.5% (p=0.0191) of A- and C-patients, respectively. During follow-up, both groups not only had marked reduction of RA symptoms and C-reactive protein, but also some radiological disease progression. Also, 6.2% of A-patients needed DMARDs. Apart from adverse drug reactions (50.4% and 69.7% of A- and C-patients, respectively, p=0.0020), none of the primary outcomes showed any significant between-group difference. Study results suggest that for most patients preferring anthroposophic treatment, satisfactory results can be achieved without use of DMARDs and with less use of corticosteroids and NSAIDs than in conventional care. Because of the non-randomized study design, with A-patients choosing anthroposophic treatment, one cannot infer how this treatment would have worked for C-patients.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Master 4 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Social Sciences 3 21%
Computer Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 7%
Other 3 21%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 May 2018.
All research outputs
#939,428
of 12,913,877 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#34
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,987
of 269,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#3
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,913,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 269,806 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 91% of its contemporaries.