↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis and management of Crigler-Najjar syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, January 1999
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Diagnosis and management of Crigler-Najjar syndrome
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, January 1999
DOI 10.1007/pl00014330
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. L. M. Jansen

Abstract

Crigler-Najjar syndrome (CNS) results from a mutation in one of the five exons of the gene coding for the enzyme bilirubin-UDP-glucuronosyltransferase by exon 1*1 and exons 2-5 of the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1 locus, the bilirubin glucuronidating isoform of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase. CNS type 2 is caused by a single base pair mutation leading to a decreased but not totally absent enzyme activity. In these patients the enzyme remains responsive to phenobarbital induction therapy and their bile contains low amounts of bilirubin mono- and diglucuronides. In CNS type 1 the enzyme activity is completely absent. CNS type 1 patients do not respond to phenobarbital and their bile does not contain more than traces of bilirubin conjugates. In 1997 we reported a World Registry on the treatment of patients with CNS type 1. Data were collected on 57 patients, of whom 21 (37%) had been transplanted at the time of data collection. Some 15 patients (26%) had brain damage, in 7 of whom the brain damage was mild and they received a liver transplant. Patients with brain damage at transplantation were significantly older than those without brain damage (14.3 vs 5.9 years). Before transplantation the serum bilirubin level of CNS type 1 patients should be kept below 350 micromol/l with daily phototherapy. Oral calcium supplementation makes phototherapy more efficient. Gene therapy has been performed successfully in the Gunn rat, an animal model for this disease. Liver cell transplantation has recently been done in a child with CNS type 1.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 18 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 20 44%
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 03 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,453,350
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#1,458
of 3,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,747
of 99,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 99,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.