↓ Skip to main content

Cutaneous Sympathetic Dysfunction in Patients with Machado–Joseph Disease

Overview of attention for article published in The Cerebellum, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Cutaneous Sympathetic Dysfunction in Patients with Machado–Joseph Disease
Published in
The Cerebellum, April 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12311-012-0381-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshitaka Yamanaka, Masato Asahina, Yuichi Akaogi, Yoshikatsu Fujinuma, Akira Katagiri, Kazuaki Kanai, Satoshi Kuwabara

Abstract

Although the clinical symptoms of Machado-Joseph disease (MJD) vary widely, those involving the autonomic nervous system, such as cutaneous sympathetic dysfunction, have rarely been investigated. In addition, there are no reports on cutaneous vasomotor function in patients with MJD. To determine the effects of MJD on cutaneous sympathetic function, we evaluated cutaneous vasomotor and sudomotor responses in the palms of 15 patients (mean age, 49 ± 15 years; seven men and eight women) who were genetically diagnosed with MJD as well as in the palms of 15 age-matched, healthy controls (mean age, 48 ± 16 years; nine men and six women). Sweat response was absent in 10 (67 %) patients with MJD, and the mean amplitude of sweat response was significantly lower (p<0.0001) in patients with MJD than in healthy controls following mental stress (mental arithmetic) and physiological stimuli. Although vasoconstrictive response was absent in three patients with MJD (20 %), there were no significant differences in the mean amplitude of vasoconstrictive response between patients with MJD and healthy controls. These results indicate that patients with MJD have reduced cutaneous sympathetic response, including severely impaired sudomotor functions and mildly affected vasomotor functions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Master 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 April 2012.
All research outputs
#19,495,804
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#659
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,877
of 164,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 164,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.