↓ Skip to main content

Current and emerging management options for patients with Morquio A syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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.
Title
Current and emerging management options for patients with Morquio A syndrome
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2013
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s24771
Pubmed ID
Authors

G. Hossein Almassi, Algahim

Abstract

Morquio A syndrome is a lysosomal storage disease associated with mucopolysaccharidosis. It is caused by a deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme, N-acetylgalactosamine-6-sulfate sulfatase, which leads to accumulation of keratan sulfate and condroitin-6 sulfate in multiple organs. Patients present with multisystemic complications involving the musculoskeletal, respiratory, cardiovascular, and digestive systems. Presently, there is no definitive cure, and current management options are palliative. Enzyme replacement therapy and hematopoietic stem cell therapy have been proven effective in certain lysosomal storage diseases, and current investigations are underway to evaluate the effectiveness of these therapies and others for the treatment of Morquio A syndrome. This review discusses the current and emerging treatment options for Morquio A syndrome, citing examples of the treatment of other mucopolysaccharidoses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Researcher 7 12%
Unspecified 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 35%
Unspecified 6 11%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 13 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 03 January 2016.
All research outputs
#4,043,616
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#189
of 1,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,755
of 283,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,267 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 283,350 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.