↓ Skip to main content

Congenital muscular dystrophy. Part I: a review of phenotypical and diagnostic aspects

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Congenital muscular dystrophy. Part I: a review of phenotypical and diagnostic aspects
Published in
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, March 2009
DOI 10.1590/s0004-282x2009000100038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Umbertina Conti Reed

Abstract

The congenital muscular dystrophies (CMDs) are a group of genetically and clinically heterogeneous hereditary myopathies with preferentially autosomal recessive inheritance, that are characterized by congenital hypotonia, delayed motor development and early onset of progressive muscle weakness associated with dystrophic pattern on muscle biopsy. The clinical course is broadly variable and can comprise the involvement of the brain and eyes. From 1994, a great development in the knowledge of the molecular basis has occurred and the classification of CMDs has to be continuously up dated. We initially present the main clinical and diagnostic data concerning the CMDs related to changes in the complex dystrophin-associated glycoproteins-extracellular matrix: CMD with merosin deficiency (CMD1A), collagen VI related CMDs (Ullrich CMD and Bethlem myopathy), CMDs with abnormal glycosylation of alpha-dystroglycan (Fukuyama CMD, Muscle-eye-brain disease, Walker-Warburg syndrome, CMD1C, CMD1D), and the much rarer CMD with integrin deficiency. Finally, we present other forms of CMDs not related with the dystrophin/glycoproteins/extracellular matrix complex (rigid spine syndrome, CMD1B, CMD with lamin A/C deficiency), and some apparently specific clinical forms not yet associated with a known molecular mechanism. The second part of this review concerning the pathogenesis and therapeutic perspectives of the different subtypes of CMD will be described in a next number.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 66 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 9 13%
Other 6 8%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 18%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 8 11%
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 July 2021.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#387
of 1,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,901
of 106,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 106,862 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them