↓ Skip to main content

DiGeorge Syndrome: a not so rare disease

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
DiGeorge Syndrome: a not so rare disease
Published in
Clinics, January 2010
DOI 10.1590/s1807-59322010000900009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela BF Fomin, Antonio Carlos Pastorino, Chong Ae Kim, Alexandre C Pereira, Magda Carneiro-Sampaio, Cristina Miuki Abe Jacob

Abstract

The DiGeorge Syndrome was first described in 1968 as a primary immunodeficiency resulting from the abnormal development of the third and fourth pharyngeal pouches during embryonic life. It is characterized by hypocalcemia due to hypoparathyroidism, heart defects, and thymic hypoplasia or aplasia. Its incidence is 1:3000 live births and, despite its high frequency, little is known about its natural history and progression. ←This is probably due to diagnostic difficulties and the great variety of names used to describe it, such as velocardiofacial, Shprintzen, DiGeorge, and CATCH 22 Syndromes, as well as conotruncal facial anomaly. All represent the same genetic condition, chromosome 22q11.2 deletion, which might have several clinical expressions. To describe clinical and laboratorial data and phenotypic characteristics of patients with DiGeorge Syndrome. Patients underwent standard clinical and epidemiological protocol and tests to detect heart diseases, facial abnormalities, dimorphisms, neurological or behavioral disorders, recurrent infections and other comorbidities. Of 14 patients (8m - 18y11m), only one did not have 22q11.2 deletion detected. The main findings were: conotruncal malformation (n = 12), facial abnormalities (n = 11), hypocalcemia (n = 5) and low lymphocyte count (n=2). The authors pointed out the necessity of DGS suspicion in all patient presenting with heart defects, facial abnormalities (associated or not with hypocalcemia), and immunological disorders because although frequency of DGS is high, few patients with a confirmed diagnosis are followed up.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 22%
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 35 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 July 2023.
All research outputs
#7,778,510
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#294
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,854
of 172,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#14
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 172,626 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 66% of its contemporaries.