↓ Skip to main content

A Perspective on the Use of NB-UVB Phototherapy vs. PUVA Photochemotherapy

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
A Perspective on the Use of NB-UVB Phototherapy vs. PUVA Photochemotherapy
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally H. Ibbotson

Abstract

Narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy and psoralen-UVA (PUVA) photochemotherapy are widely used phototherapeutic modalities for a range of skin diseases. The main indication for NB-UVB and PUVA therapies is psoriasis, and other key diagnoses include atopic eczema, vitiligo, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and the photodermatoses. The decision on choice of phototherapy is important and NB-UVB is usually the primary choice. NB-UVB phototherapy is a safe and effective therapy which is usually considered when topical agents have failed. PUVA requires prior psoralen sensitization but remains a highly effective mainstay therapy, often used when NB-UVB fails, there is rapid relapse following NB-UVB or in specific indications, such as pustular or erythrodermic psoriasis. This review will provide a perspective on the main indications for use of NB-UVB and PUVA therapies and provide comparative information on these important dermatological treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 39 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Chemistry 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 43 45%
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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,641,800
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,063
of 5,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,185
of 327,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#64
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 327,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.