| Title |
The clinical heterogeneity of drug-induced myoclonus: an illustrated review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-016-8357-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabine Janssen, Bastiaan R. Bloem, Bart P. van de Warrenburg |
| Abstract |
A wide variety of drugs can cause myoclonus. To illustrate this, we first discuss two personally observed cases, one presenting with generalized, but facial-predominant, myoclonus that was induced by amantadine; and the other presenting with propriospinal myoclonus triggered by an antibiotic. We then review the literature on drugs that may cause myoclonus, extracting the corresponding clinical phenotype and suggested underlying pathophysiology. The most frequently reported classes of drugs causing myoclonus include opiates, antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antibiotics. The distribution of myoclonus ranges from focal to generalized, even amongst patients using the same drug, which suggests various neuro-anatomical generators. Possible underlying pathophysiological alterations involve serotonin, dopamine, GABA, and glutamate-related processes at various levels of the neuraxis. The high number of cases of drug-induced myoclonus, together with their reported heterogeneous clinical characteristics, underscores the importance of considering drugs as a possible cause of myoclonus, regardless of its clinical characteristics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Researcher | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 18 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,835,975
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#278
of 4,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,923
of 421,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#4
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 421,376 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 93% of its contemporaries.