↓ Skip to main content

Assessing functional performance in the mdx mouse model.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Visualized Experiments, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 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
Assessing functional performance in the mdx mouse model.
Published in
Journal of Visualized Experiments, March 2014
DOI 10.3791/51303
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemieke Aartsma-Rus, Maaike van Putten

Abstract

Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe and progressive muscle wasting disorder for which no cure is available. Nevertheless, several potential pharmaceutical compounds and gene therapy approaches have progressed into clinical trials. With improvement in muscle function being the most important end point in these trials, a lot of emphasis has been placed on setting up reliable, reproducible, and easy to perform functional tests to pre clinically assess muscle function, strength, condition, and coordination in the mdx mouse model for DMD. Both invasive and noninvasive tests are available. Tests that do not exacerbate the disease can be used to determine the natural history of the disease and the effects of therapeutic interventions (e.g. forelimb grip strength test, two different hanging tests using either a wire or a grid and rotarod running). Alternatively, forced treadmill running can be used to enhance disease progression and/or assess protective effects of therapeutic interventions on disease pathology. We here describe how to perform these most commonly used functional tests in a reliable and reproducible manner. Using these protocols based on standard operating procedures enables comparison of data between different laboratories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 251 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 16%
Student > Master 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 10 4%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 77 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 52 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 44 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 7%
Neuroscience 16 6%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 82 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#6,556
of 10,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,545
of 224,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#169
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,320 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 224,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.