↓ Skip to main content

Clinical prevalence of Lewy body dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
45 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
Title
Clinical prevalence of Lewy body dementia
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13195-018-0350-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph P. M. Kane, Ajenthan Surendranathan, Allison Bentley, Sally A. H. Barker, John-Paul Taylor, Alan J. Thomas, Louise M. Allan, Richard J. McNally, Peter W. James, Ian G. McKeith, David J. Burn, John T. O’Brien

Abstract

The prevalence of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and dementia in Parkinson's disease (PDD) in routine clinical practice is unclear. Prevalence rates observed in clinical and population-based cohorts and neuropathological studies vary greatly. Small sample sizes and methodological factors in these studies limit generalisability to clinical practice. We investigated prevalence in a case series across nine secondary care services over an 18-month period, to determine how commonly DLB and PDD cases are diagnosed and reviewed within two regions of the UK. Patients with DLB comprised 4.6% (95% CI 4.0-5.2%) of all dementia cases. DLB was represented in a significantly higher proportion of dementia cases in services in the North East (5.6%) than those in East Anglia (3.3%; χ2= 13.6, p < 0.01). DLB prevalence in individual services ranged from 2.4 to 5.9%. PDD comprised 9.7% (95% CI 8.3-11.1%) of Parkinson's disease cases. No significant variation in PDD prevalence was observed between regions or between services. We found that the frequency of clinical diagnosis of DLB varied between geographical regions in the UK, and that the prevalence of both DLB and PDD was much lower than would be expected in this case series, suggesting considerable under-diagnosis of both disorders. The significant variation in DLB diagnostic rates between these two regions may reflect true differences in disease prevalence, but more likely differences in diagnostic practice. The systematic introduction of more standardised diagnostic practice could improve the rates of diagnosis of both conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Master 20 9%
Other 16 7%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 88 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 17%
Neuroscience 32 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 6%
Psychology 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 102 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 01 January 2023.
All research outputs
#969,389
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#122
of 1,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,381
of 472,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 472,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.