| Title |
Diagnosis and treatment of the Pierre Robin sequence: results of a retrospective clinical study and review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Pediatrics, January 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s004310000646 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annet P. M. van den Elzen, Ben A. Semmekrot, Ernie M. H. F. Bongers, Patrick L. M. Huygen, Henri A. M. Marres |
| Abstract |
We performed a retrospective study of all children with Pierre Robin sequence (PRS), admitted to our hospital from 1981-1998 in order to evaluate diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. Patients were divided into two categories: isolated PRS (group 1) and PRS plus, i.e. PRS as part of a more complex syndrome (group 2). A total of 74 patients with PRS were found, 29 (39%) males and 45 (61%) females of whom 47 (63.5%) could be categorised as isolated PRS and 27 (36.8%) as PRS plus. The most frequent diagnoses in patients with PRS plus were Stickler syndrome and the velocardiofacial syndrome. Ophthalmological and fluorescent in situ hybridisation of chromosome 22 investigations should therefore be performed in all patients, as soon as the diagnosis of PRS is established. Some form of airway treatment was necessary in the majority of patients (52 of 74), most could be treated conservatively with prone/lateral positioning and close observation. Endotracheal intubation was necessary in one child from group 1 versus five from group 2. Tracheostomy was performed in three children from group 1 and two from group 2. Feeding problems occurred in about 25% of all PRS patients and stunted growth was seen especially in boys with isolated PRS before the age of 10 months. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 61% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
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 16 March 2009.
All research outputs
#7,453,479
of 22,786,691 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#1,458
of 3,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,429
of 114,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,691 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 114,242 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.