↓ Skip to main content

Functional impairment in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 can be assessed by an ataxia rating scale (SARA)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
Title
Functional impairment in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1 can be assessed by an ataxia rating scale (SARA)
Published in
Journal of Neurology, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00415-017-8399-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni DiPaolo, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Nikoletta Nikolenko, Antonio Atalaia, Darren G. Monckton, Michela Guglieri, Hanns Lochmüller

Abstract

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is not characterised by ataxia per se; however, DM1 and ataxia patients show similar disturbances in movement coordination often experiencing walking and balance difficulties, although caused by different underlying pathologies. This study aims to investigate the use of a scale previously described for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA) with the hypothesis that it could have utility in DM1 patients as a measure of disease severity and risk of falling. Data from 54 DM1 patients were pulled from the PHENO-DM1 natural history study for analysis. Mean SARA score in the DM1 population was 5.45 relative to the maximum score of eight. A flooring effect (score 0) was observed in mild cases within the sample. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability was high with intraclass coefficients (ICC) of 0.983 and 1.00, respectively. Internal consistency was acceptable as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of 0.761. Component analysis revealed two principle components. SARA correlated with: (1) all measures of muscle function tested, including quantitative muscle testing of ankle dorsiflexion (r = -0.584*), the 6 min walk test (r = -0.739*), 10 m walk test (r = 0.741*), and the nine hole peg test (r = 0.602*) and (2) measures of disease severity/burden, such as MIRS (r = 0.718*), MDHI (r = 0.483*), and DM1-Activ (r = -0.749*) (*p < 0.001). The SARA score was predicted by an interaction between modal CTG repeat length and age at sampling (r = 0.678, p = 0.003). A score of eight or above predicted the use of a walking aid with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 85.7%. We suggest that further research is warranted to ascertain whether SARA or components of SARA are useful outcome measures for clinical trials in DM1. As a tool, it can be used for gathering information about disease severity/burden and helping to identify patients in need of a walking aid, and can potentially be applied in both research and healthcare settings.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 17%
Neuroscience 9 9%
Sports and Recreations 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 27 26%
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 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,185,127
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#2,770
of 4,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,204
of 420,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#31
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 420,388 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.