↓ Skip to main content

Understanding dystonia: diagnostic issues and how to overcome them

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
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.
Title
Understanding dystonia: diagnostic issues and how to overcome them
Published in
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, November 2016
DOI 10.1590/0004-282x20160140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Camargos, Francisco Cardoso

Abstract

The diagnosis and treatment of dystonia are challenging. This is likely due to gaps in the complete understanding of its pathophysiology, lack of animal models for translational studies, absence of a consistent pathological substrate and highly variable phenotypes and genotypes. The aim of this review article is to provide an overview of the clinical, neurophysiological and genetic features of dystonia that can help in the identification of this movement disorder, as well as in the differential diagnosis of the main forms of genetic dystonia. The variation of penetrance, age of onset, and topographic distribution of the disease in carriers of the same genetic mutation indicates that other factors - either genetic or environmental - might be involved in the development of symptoms. The growing knowledge of cell dysfunction in mutants may give insights into more effective therapeutic targets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Neuroscience 11 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 18 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,512,172
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#155
of 1,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,223
of 317,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 317,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.