↓ Skip to main content

Who was first to diagnose and report neuropathic arthropathy of the foot and ankle: Jean-Martin Charcot or Herbert William Page?

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Who was first to diagnose and report neuropathic arthropathy of the foot and ankle: Jean-Martin Charcot or Herbert William Page?
Published in
Diabetologia, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00125-013-2961-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee J. Sanders, Michael E. Edmonds, William J. Jeffcoate

Abstract

In November 1883, Jean-Martin Charcot and Charles Féré reported on bone and joint disease of the foot in cases of tabes dorsalis, and referred to the condition as 'pied tabétique'--a disabling neuropathic osteoarthropathy that we usually now refer to as the Charcot foot. Charcot had originally described neuropathic osteoarthropathy in more proximal joints in 1868, and in his 1883 paper with Féré stated that involvement of the short bones and small joints of the foot had not yet been described. They emphasised in the paper that one of their cases was the first ever observed, two years earlier, in 1881. It is relevant, however, that it was in this same year that involvement of the foot by tabetic arthropathy was presented to the International Medical Congress in London by an English surgeon, Herbert William Page. We believe that Page was the first to diagnose and to report a case of tabetic neuropathic osteoarthropathy in which the bones of the foot and ankle were involved. He was also the first to propose a link between the tabetic foot and disease of the peripheral nerves, as opposed to the central nervous system.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Other 11 41%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Unspecified 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#5,480,003
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#2,338
of 5,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,237
of 197,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#14
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 197,989 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.