↓ Skip to main content

Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: Clinical Approach and Management

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies: Clinical Approach and Management
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asma Malik, Ghazala Hayat, Junaid S. Kalia, Miguel A. Guzman

Abstract

Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a group of chronic, autoimmune conditions affecting primarily the proximal muscles. The most common types are dermatomyositis (DM), polymyositis (PM), necrotizing autoimmune myopathy (NAM), and sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM). Patients typically present with sub-acute to chronic onset of proximal weakness manifested by difficulty with rising from a chair, climbing stairs, lifting objects, and combing hair. They are uniquely identified by their clinical presentation consisting of muscular and extramuscular manifestations. Laboratory investigations, including increased serum creatine kinase (CK) and myositis specific antibodies (MSA) may help in differentiating clinical phenotype and to confirm the diagnosis. However, muscle biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis. These disorders are potentially treatable with proper diagnosis and initiation of therapy. Goals of treatment are to eliminate inflammation, restore muscle performance, reduce morbidity, and improve quality of life. This review aims to provide a basic diagnostic approach to patients with suspected IIM, summarize current therapeutic strategies, and provide an insight into future prospective therapies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 233 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Postgraduate 25 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Other 51 22%
Unknown 58 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Neuroscience 10 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 4%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 63 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,331,559
of 26,009,886 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,706
of 14,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,275
of 350,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#13
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,009,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 350,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.