↓ Skip to main content

Cold paresis in multifocal motor neuropathy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Cold paresis in multifocal motor neuropathy
Published in
Journal of Neurology, August 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00415-010-5712-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dirk C. G. Straver, Jan-Thies H. van Asseldonk, Nicolette C. Notermans, John H. J. Wokke, Leonard H. van den Berg, Hessel Franssen

Abstract

Increased weakness during cold (cold paresis) was reported in single cases of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). This was unexpected because demyelination is a feature of MMN and symptoms of demyelination improve, rather than worsen, in cold. It was hypothesized that cold paresis in MMN does not reflect demyelination only, but may indicate the existence of inflammatory nerve lesions with permanently depolarized axons that only just conduct at normal temperature, but fail at lower temperatures. We investigated symptoms of cold paresis in 50 MMN patients, 48 chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) patients, 35 progressive spinal muscular atrophy (PSMA) patients, and 25 chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy patients. We also investigated symptoms of increased weakness during warmth (heat paresis). Cold paresis was reported more often than heat paresis. Cold paresis was most frequently reported in MMN. Multivariate analysis indicated that MMN patients had a 4- to 6-fold higher risk of reporting cold paresis than CIDP or PSMA patients. Because cold paresis is not consistent with demyelination, the lesions in MMN may involve other mechanisms than demyelination only. In conclusion, symptoms of cold paresis are common in peripheral nervous system disorders, particularly in MMN. This supports the above-described hypothesis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 19%
Researcher 8 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 36%
Neuroscience 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 23%
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 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,774
of 4,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,782
of 94,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 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 4,475 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 94,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.