↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effect of biologic therapy on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis: what does it add to methotrexate?

Overview of attention for article published in Biologics: Targets & Therapy, July 2012
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
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Effect of biologic therapy on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis: what does it add to methotrexate?
Published in
Biologics: Targets & Therapy, July 2012
DOI 10.2147/btt.s20659
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graeme Jones, Erica Darian-Smith, Michael Kwok, Tania Winzenberg

Abstract

There have been substantial advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in recent years. Traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been shown to have small effects on the progression of radiographic damage. This quantitative overview summarizes the evidence for biologic DMARDs and radiographic damage either alone or in combination with methotrexate. Two outcomes were used (standardized mean difference and odds of progression). A total of 21 trials were identified of which 18 had useable data. For biologic monotherapy, tocilizumab, adalimumab, and etanercept were significantly better than methotrexate, with tocilizumab ranking first in both outcomes while golimumab was ineffective in both outcomes. For a biologic in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate alone, most therapies studied (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, tocilizumab, and rituximab) were effective at slowing X-ray progression using either outcome, with infliximab ranking first in both outcomes. The exceptions to this were golimumab (no effect on standardized mean difference) and abatacept (no effect on odds of progression). This effect was additional to methotrexate; thus, the overall benefit is moderate to large in magnitude, which is clearly of major clinical significance for sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis and supports the use of biologic DMARDs in those with a poor disease prognosis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Researcher 4 21%
Other 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 68%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%
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 21 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#172
of 274 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,250
of 177,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biologics: Targets & Therapy
#10
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 274 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 177,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.