↓ Skip to main content

VARIABLE EXPRESSION OF RETINOPATHY IN A PEDIGREE OF PATIENTS WITH INCONTINENTIA PIGMENTI

Overview of attention for article published in Retina, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
VARIABLE EXPRESSION OF RETINOPATHY IN A PEDIGREE OF PATIENTS WITH INCONTINENTIA PIGMENTI
Published in
Retina, December 2015
DOI 10.1097/iae.0000000000000615
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To characterize the varied ocular manifestations of incontinentia pigmenti (IP) in a large pedigree. All available members of the kindred who were affected with IP were examined with ophthalmoscopy, wide-field color photos, and fluorescein angiography. Individual family members demonstrated variable expression of retinopathy characteristic of IP. There was severe retinopathy in two eyes: one associated with concurrent persistent fetal vasculature and another with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Another individual with biopsy-confirmed IP demonstrated no retinopathy in either eye. When present, retinopathy manifested asymmetrically between eyes of the same individual. Cutaneous manifestations of IP are irregular and nonuniform due to lyonization of the X chromosome. In this report, we identify asymmetric retinal disease between eyes in the same individual and variable retinal findings within the kindred. These differences may be explained by random inactivation of the X chromosome or other epigenetic modifications.

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.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Other 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
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 23 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Retina
#2,480
of 3,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,517
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retina
#55
of 103 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 3,719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 395,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.