↓ Skip to main content

Severe peri-ictal respiratory dysfunction is common in Dravet syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Investigation, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
117 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.
Article details
Title
Severe peri-ictal respiratory dysfunction is common in Dravet syndrome
Published in
Journal of Clinical Investigation, February 2018
DOI 10.1172/jci94999
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Dravet syndrome (DS) is a severe childhood-onset epilepsy commonly due to mutations of the sodium channel gene SCN1A. DS patients have a high risk of sudden unexplained death in epilepsy (SUDEP), believed to be due to cardiac mechanisms. Here we show that DS patients have peri-ictal respiratory dysfunction. One patient who had severe and prolonged postictal hypoventilation later died of SUDEP. Mice with an Scn1aR1407X/+ loss of function mutation died after spontaneous and heat-induced seizures due to central apnea followed by progressive bradycardia. Death could be prevented with mechanical ventilation after seizures induced by hyperthermia or maximal electroshock. Muscarinic receptor antagonists did not prevent bradycardia or death when given at doses selective for peripheral parasympathetic blockade, whereas apnea was prevented at doses known to be high enough to cross the blood brain barrier. Anoxia causes bradycardia due to a direct effect on the heart. We conclude that SUDEP in DS may result in some cases from primary central apnea, which can cause bradycardia presumably via an effect of hypoxemia on cardiac muscle.

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 117 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 %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 4 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 46 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 22 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 47 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#8,727,732
of 29,454,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Investigation
#10,493
of 18,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,809
of 467,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Investigation
#79
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,454,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 467,831 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.