↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cladribine tablets’ potential role as a key example of selective immune reconstitution therapy in multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease, May 2018
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
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Cladribine tablets’ potential role as a key example of selective immune reconstitution therapy in multiple sclerosis
Published in
Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/dnnd.s161450
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexey N Boyko, Olga V Boyko

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most important, disabling, and prevalent neurological disorders of young adults. It is a chronic inflammatory and neurodegenerative disease when autoreactive B and T cells have downstream effects that result in demyelination and neuronal loss. Anti-inflammatory disease-modifying therapies do have proven efficacy in delaying disease and disability progression in MS. While the progress in MS treatments has already improved the prognosis and quality of patients' lives overall, there are some clear shortcomings and unmet needs in the current MS treatment landscape. The most promising means of MS treatment is selective immune reconstitution therapy (SIRT). This therapy is given in short-duration courses of immunosuppression, producing durable effects on the immune system and preventing nervous tissue loss. This review discusses the mechanisms of action and the data of clinical trials of cladribine tablets as an example of SIRT in MS. The clinical benefits of cladribine tablets in these studies include decreased relapse rate and disability progression with large reductions in lesion activity, and protection against brain volume loss. Whether all of these neurological findings are direct results of lymphocyte depletion, or if there are downstream effects on other, unknown, neurodegenerative processes are yet to be determined, but these clearly point to an interesting area of research.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 18%
Neuroscience 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 8 47%
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 29 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,591,410
of 25,481,734 outputs
Outputs from Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease
#54
of 96 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,576
of 339,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,481,734 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 96 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 339,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.