↓ Skip to main content

Common Evaluations of Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Reach Discordant Classifications across Different Populations

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Common Evaluations of Disease Activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Reach Discordant Classifications across Different Populations
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helena Canhão, Ana Maria Rodrigues, Maria João Gregório, Sara S. Dias, José António Melo Gomes, Maria José Santos, Augusto Faustino, José António Costa, Cornelia Allaart, Emilia Gvozdenović, Desirée van der Heijde, Pedro Machado, Jaime C. Branco, João Eurico Fonseca, José António Silva

Abstract

The classification of disease activity states in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be achieved through disease activity indices, such as the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Subjective measurements, such as patient reported outcomes have been incorporated into several of these indices alongside more objective assessments, such as increases in the ESR and C-reactive protein. Moreover, while they use similar criteria, different indices weight these criteria to different extents. Therefore, the classifications based on each evaluation may not always be the same. We aim to compare the performance of the three indices and their individual components in two different populations. Data from Dutch and Portuguese adherent centers were extracted from the METEOR database, a multinational collaboration on RA. We included a total of 24,605 visits from Dutch centers (from 5,870 patients) and 20,120 visits from Portuguese centers (from 3,185 patients). We compared the disease activity states as evaluated by the DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and SDAI across the two populations. In addition, we analyzed the individual components of each evaluation, including their respective contributions to the outcome, in each population. We found significant differences in the disease activity states classified with the DAS28-ESR between the two populations. SDAI and CDAI had more congruous results. While the proportion of visits to Dutch and Portuguese centers that were classified as "in remission" was very similar between the CDAI and SDAI, the DAS28-ESR gave discordant results. Dutch patients had lower ESRs, which is more heavily weighted in the DAS28-ESR. In addition, even though the mean physicians' global assessment values did not vary significantly for Dutch vs Portuguese physicians, we found that doctors at Portuguese centers overall scored the physician's global assessment lower than Dutch physicians for patient visits classified by disease activity state. While the CDAI and SDAI assigned disease activity states that were largely similar, the DAS28-ESR was often discordant across the two populations. Moreover, we found that physicians, more than patients, evaluated disease activity differently among the Portuguese and Dutch populations.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 21 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,507,266
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,119
of 5,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,033
of 332,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#59
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 332,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.