| Title |
Seronegative autoimmune autonomic neuropathy: a distinct clinical entity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Autonomic Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10286-017-0493-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisabeth P. Golden, Meredith A. Bryarly, Steven Vernino |
| Abstract |
Autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy (AAG) is associated with ganglionic acetylcholine receptor (gAChR) antibodies. We describe a similar but distinct series of patients with autoimmune autonomic failure lacking this antibody. Retrospective chart review. Six patients presented with subacute autonomic failure, seronegative for gAChR antibodies. Orthostatic hypotension and gastrointestinal complaints were common. Autonomic testing revealed predominant sympathetic failure and no premature pupillary redilation. All patients had sensory symptoms and/or pain, which was severe in three. Immunotherapy with plasma exchange, intravenous immunoglobulin, and rituximab was ineffective. Three patients responded to intravenous steroids. In these cases of autoimmune autonomic failure, key differences from seropositive AAG emerge. Testing showed prominent sympathetic (rather than cholinergic) failure, specific pupillary findings of AAG were absent, and sensory symptoms were prominent. AAG responds to antibody-targeted immunotherapy, while these patients responded best to steroids. This seronegative autoimmune autonomic neuropathy is a distinct clinical entity requiring a different treatment approach from AAG. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| Norway | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
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 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,344,411
of 24,827,122 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Autonomic Research
#223
of 847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,040
of 453,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Autonomic Research
#6
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,827,122 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 453,161 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.