↓ Skip to main content

Severity score system for progressive myelopathy: development and validation of a new clinical scale

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Severity score system for progressive myelopathy: development and validation of a new clinical scale
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, May 2012
DOI 10.1590/s0100-879x2012007500072
Pubmed ID
Authors

R.M. Castilhos, D. Blank, C.B.O. Netto, C.F.M. Souza, L.N.T. Fernandes, I.V.D. Schwartz, R. Giugliani, L.B. Jardim

Abstract

Progressive myelopathies can be secondary to inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) such as mucopolysaccharidosis, mucolipidosis, and adrenomyeloneuropathy. The available scale, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, was validated only for degenerative vertebral diseases. Our objective is to propose and validate a new scale addressing progressive myelopathies and to present validating data for JOA in these diseases. A new scale, Severity Score System for Progressive Myelopathy (SSPROM), covering motor disability, sphincter dysfunction, spasticity, and sensory losses. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were measured. External validation was tested by applying JOA, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the Barthel index, and the Osame Motor Disability Score. Thirty-eight patients, 17 with adrenomyeloneuropathy, 3 with mucopolysaccharidosis I, 3 with mucopolysaccharidosis IV, 2 with mucopolysaccharidosis VI, 2 with mucolipidosis, and 11 with human T-cell lymphotropic virus type-1 (HTLV-1)-associated myelopathy participated in the study. The mean ± SD SSPROM and JOA scores were 74.6 ± 11.4 and 12.4 ± 2.3, respectively. Construct validity for SSPROM (JOA: r = 0.84, P < 0.0001; EDSS: r = -0.83, P < 0.0001; Barthel: r = 0.56, P < 0.002; Osame: r = -0.94, P < 0.0001) and reliability (intra-rater: r = 0.83, P < 0.0001; inter-rater: r = 0.94, P < 0.0001) were demonstrated. The metric properties of JOA were similar to those found in SSPROM. Several clinimetric requirements were met for both SSPROM and JOA scales. Since SSPROM has a wider range, it should be useful for follow-up studies on IEM myelopathies.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 30%
Neuroscience 7 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 8 20%
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 18 July 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#901
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,854
of 176,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 176,129 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.