↓ Skip to main content

Congenital nephrotic syndrome in an infant with ALG1‐congenital disorder of glycosylation

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatrics International, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Congenital nephrotic syndrome in an infant with ALG1‐congenital disorder of glycosylation
Published in
Pediatrics International, June 2016
DOI 10.1111/ped.12988
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Congenital nephrotic syndrome (NS) in the newborn is most frequently related to mutations in genes specific for structural integrity of the glomerular basement membrane and associated filtration structures within the kidney, resulting in massive leakage of plasma proteins into the urine. Occurrence of congenital NS in a multi-system syndrome is less common. We describe the case of an infant with deteriorating neurological status, seizures, edema, and proteinuria who was found to have a mutation in gene ALG1 and a renal biopsy consistent with congenital NS. Furthermore, we briefly review rare existing case reports documenting congenital NS in patients with mutations in ALG1, and treatment strategies, including novel use of peritoneal dialysis.

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 4 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 31 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 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Lecturer 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 February 2025.
All research outputs
#7,388,524
of 29,385,863 outputs
Outputs from Pediatrics International
#296
of 1,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,894
of 325,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatrics International
#4
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,385,863 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 325,221 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.