↓ Skip to main content

Arguing against the proposed definition changes of PD

Overview of attention for article published in Movement Disorders, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Arguing against the proposed definition changes of PD
Published in
Movement Disorders, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/mds.26721
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

As members of the Lewy Body Dementia Association Scientific Advisory Council, we aim to address some of the issues raised in the article titled "Time to Redefine PD? Introductory Statement of the MDS Task Force on the Definition of Parkinson's Disease." In particular, we suggest that the 1-year rule distinguishing Parkinson's disease dementia from dementia with Lewy bodies is worth maintaining because it serves an important purpose in clinical practice and clinical and basic science research and when helping the lay community understand the complexity of these different clinical phenotypes. Furthermore, we believe that adding an additional diagnostic label, "PD (dementia with Lewy bodies subtype)," will confuse rather than clarify the distinction between dementia with Lewy bodies and PD or PD dementia, and will not improve management or expedite therapeutic development. We present arguments supporting our contentions. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Other 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Professor 7 7%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 30%
Neuroscience 21 22%
Psychology 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 26 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,174,695
of 26,871,714 outputs
Outputs from Movement Disorders
#1,112
of 5,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,451
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Movement Disorders
#4
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,871,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 329,072 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 85% 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.