↓ Skip to main content

Autoantibodies Associated With Connective Tissue Diseases: What Meaning for Clinicians?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Autoantibodies Associated With Connective Tissue Diseases: What Meaning for Clinicians?
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00541
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin Didier, Loïs Bolko, Delphine Giusti, Segolene Toquet, Ailsa Robbins, Frank Antonicelli, Amelie Servettaz

Abstract

Connective tissue diseases (CTDs) such as systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, myositis, Sjögren's syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis are systemic diseases which are often associated with a challenge in diagnosis. Autoantibodies (AAbs) can be detected in these diseases and help clinicians in their diagnosis. Actually, pathophysiology of these diseases is associated with the presence of antinuclear antibodies. In the last decades, many new antibodies were discovered, but their implication in pathogenesis of CTDs remains unclear. Furthermore, the classification of these AAbs is nowadays misused, as their targets can be localized outside of the nuclear compartment. Interestingly, in most cases, each antibody is associated with a specific phenotype in CTDs and therefore help in better defining either the disease subtypes or diseases activity and outcome. Because of recent progresses in their detection and in the comprehension of their pathogenesis implication in CTD-associated antibodies, clinicians should pay attention to the presence of these different AAbs to improve patient's management. In this review, we propose to focus on the different phenotypes and features associated with each autoantibody used in clinical practice in those CTDs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 224 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Other 25 11%
Student > Master 21 9%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 44 20%
Unknown 70 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 34%
Immunology and Microbiology 18 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 81 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#17,690,023
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#20,843
of 32,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,374
of 347,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#529
of 698 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 347,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 698 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.