↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for treating psoriatic arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 Wikipedia pages


77 Dimensions

Readers on

80 Mendeley
Interventions for treating psoriatic arthritis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000212
Pubmed ID

Graeme Jones, Maria Crotty, Peter Brooks


To assess the effects of salazopyrin, auranofin, etretinate, fumaric acid, IMI gold, azathioprine, and methotrexate, in psoriatic arthritis. We searched Medline up to 1995, and Excerpta Medica (June 1974-95). Search terms were psoriasis, arthritis, therapy and/or controlled trial. This was supplemented by manually searching bibliographies of previously published reviews, conference proceedings and contacting drug companies. All languages were included in the initial search. All randomized trials comparing salazopyrin, auranofin, etretinate, fumaric acid, IMI gold, azathioprine, and methotrexate, in psoriatic arthritis. The main outcome measures included individual component variables derived from Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT). These include Acute Phase Reactants, Disability, Pain, Patient Global Assessment, Physician Global Assessment, Swollen joint count, Tender joint count and radiographic changes of joints in any trial of 1 year or longer [Tugwell 1993], and the change in pooled disease index. Only English trials were included in the review. Data were independently extracted from the published reports by two of the reviewers. An independent blinded quality assessment was also performed. Nineteen randomized trials were identified of which eleven were included in the quantitative analysis with data from 777 subjects. Although all agents were better than placebo, parenteral high dose methotrexate (not included), salazopyrin, azathioprine and etretinate were the agents that achieved statistical significance in a global index of disease activity (although it should be noted that only one component variable was available for azathioprine and only one trial was available for etretinate suggesting some caution is necessary in interpreting these results). Analysis of response in individual disease activity markers was more variable with considerable differences between different medications and responses. In all trials the placebo group improved over baseline (pooled improvement 0.43 DI units, 95% CI 0. 28-0.59). There was insufficient data to examine toxicity. Parenteral high dose methotrexate and salazopyrin are the only two agents with well demonstrated published efficacy in psoriatic arthritis. The magnitude of the effect seen with azathioprine, etretinate, oral low dose methotrexate and perhaps colchicine suggests that they may be effective but that further multicentre clinical trials are required to establish their efficacy. Furthermore, the magnitude of the improvement observed in the placebo group strongly suggests that uncontrolled trials should not be used to guide management decisions in this condition.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 24 30%

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 29 March 2022.
All research outputs
of 20,999,751 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 205,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,999,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,064 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 205,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.