↓ Skip to main content

Identifying Niemann–Pick type C in early-onset ataxia: two quick clinical screening tools

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Identifying Niemann–Pick type C in early-onset ataxia: two quick clinical screening tools
Published in
Journal of Neurology, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00415-016-8178-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthis Synofzik, Zofia Fleszar, Ludger Schöls, Jennifer Just, Peter Bauer, Juan V. Torres Martin, Stefan Kolb

Abstract

Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) is a rare multisystemic lysosomal disorder which, albeit treatable, is still starkly underdiagnosed. As NP-C features early onset ataxia (EOA) in 85-90 % of cases, EOA presents a promising target group for undiagnosed NP-C patients. Here, we assessed the ability of the previously established NP-C suspicion index (SI) and a novel abbreviated '2/3 SI' tool for rapid appraisal of suspected NP-C in unexplained EOA. This was a retrospective observational study comparing 'NP-C EOA' cases (EOA patients with confirmed NP-C) with non-NP-C EOA controls (EOA patients negative for NP-C gene mutations). NP-C risk prediction scores (RPS) from both the original and 2/3 SIs were calculated and their discriminatory performance evaluated. Among 133 patients (47 NP-C EOA cases; 86 non-NP-C EOA controls), moderate (40-69 points) and high (≥70 points) RPS were common based on original SI assessments in non-NP-C EOA controls [16 (19 %) and 8 (9 %), respectively], but scores ≥70 points were far more frequent [46 (98 %)] among NP-C EOA cases. RPS cut-off values provided 98 % sensitivity and 91 % specificity for NP-C at 70-point cut-off, and ROC analysis revealed an AUC of 0.982. Using the 2/3 SI, 90 % of NP-C EOA cases had scores of 2 or 3, and RPS analysis showed an AUC of 0.961. In conclusion, the NP-C SI and the new, quick-to-apply 2/3 SI distinguished well between NP-C and non-NP-C patients, even in EOA populations with high background levels of broadly NPC-compatible multisystemic disease features. While the original SI showed the greatest sensitivity, both tools reliably aided identification of patients with unexplained EOA who warranted further investigation for NP-C.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 6 21%
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 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,501,909
of 24,164,942 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#2,822
of 4,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,396
of 358,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#39
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,164,942 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 4,736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 358,796 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.