You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Myotonic dystrophy type 1: frequency of ophthalmologic findings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0004-282x20150218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karin Suzete Ikeda, Cristina Iwabe-Marchese, Marcondes Cavalcante França, Anamarli Nucci, Keila Monteiro de Carvalho |
| Abstract |
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the frequency of ophthalmologic abnormalities in a cohort of myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) patients and to correlate them with motor function. We reviewed the pathophysiology of cataract and low intraocular pressure (IOP). Method Patients were included after clinical and laboratory diagnosis and after signed informed consent. They were evaluated by Motor Function Measure scale, Portuguese version (MFM-P) and ophthalmic protocol. Results We evaluated 42 patients aged 17 to 64 years (mean 40.7 ± 12.5), 22 of which were men. IOP (n = 41) was reduced in all but one. We found cataract or positivity for surgery in 38 (90.48%) and ptosis in 23 (54.76%). These signs but not IOP were significantly correlated with severity of motor dysfunction. Abnormalities in ocular motility and stereopsis were observed. Conclusion Cataract and ptosis are frequent in DM1 and associated to motor dysfunction. Reduced IOP is also common, but appears not to be related with motor impairment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 47% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 November 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#684
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,962
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.