↓ Skip to main content

Differential Diagnosis of Jakob-Creutzfeldt Disease

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Neurology, December 2012
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Differential Diagnosis of Jakob-Creutzfeldt Disease
Published in
JAMA Neurology, December 2012
DOI 10.1001/2013.jamaneurol.79
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ross W. Paterson, Charles C. Torres-Chae, Amy L. Kuo, Tim Ando, Elizabeth A. Nguyen, Katherine Wong, Stephen J. DeArmond, Aissa Haman, Paul Garcia, David Y. Johnson, Bruce L. Miller, Michael D. Geschwind

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To identify the misdiagnoses of patients with sporadic Jakob-Creutzfeldt disease (sCJD) during the course of their disease and determine which medical specialties saw patients with sCJD prior to the correct diagnosis being made and at what point in the disease course a correct diagnosis was made. DESIGN Retrospective medical record review. SETTING A specialty referral center of a tertiary academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS One hundred sixty-three serial patients over a 5.5-year period who ultimately had pathologically proven sCJD. The study used the subset of 97 patients for whom we had adequate medical records. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Other diagnoses considered in the differential diagnosis and types of medical specialties assessing patients with sCJD. RESULTS Ninety-seven subjects' records were used in the final analysis. The most common disease categories of misdiagnosis were neurodegenerative, autoimmune/paraneoplastic, infectious, and toxic/metabolic disorders. The most common individual misdiagnoses were viral encephalitis, paraneoplastic disorder, depression, vertigo, Alzheimer disease, stroke, unspecified dementia, central nervous system vasculitis, peripheral neuropathy, and Hashimoto encephalopathy. The physicians who most commonly made these misdiagnoses were primary care physicians and neurologists; in the 18% of patients who were diagnosed correctly at their first assessment, the diagnosis was almost always by a neurologist. The mean time from onset to diagnosis was 7.9 months, an average of two-thirds of the way through their disease course. CONCLUSIONS Diagnosis of sCJD is quite delayed. When evaluating patients with rapidly progressive dementia with suspected neurodegenerative, autoimmune, infectious, or toxic/metabolic etiology, sCJD should also be included in the differential diagnosis, and appropriate diagnostic tests, such as diffusion brain magnetic resonance imaging, should be considered. Primary care physicians and neurologists need improved training in sCJD diagnosis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 145 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 29 19%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 41 28%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 38%
Neuroscience 16 11%
Psychology 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 42 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,369,982
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Neurology
#2,671
of 5,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,305
of 285,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Neurology
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,841 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 285,750 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 66% of its contemporaries.