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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Primary ciliary dyskinesia: critical evaluation of clinical symptoms and diagnosis in patients with normal and abnormal ultrastructure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-9-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mieke Boon, Anne Smits, Harry Cuppens, Martine Jaspers, Marijke Proesmans, Lieven J Dupont, Francois L Vermeulen, Sabine Van Daele, Anne Malfroot, Veronique Godding, Mark Jorissen, Kris De Boeck |
| Abstract |
Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare disorder with variable disease progression. To date, mutations in more than 20 different genes have been found. At present, PCD subtypes are described according to the ultrastructural defect on transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of the motile cilia. PCD with normal ultrastructure (NU) is rarely reported because it requires additional testing. Biallelic mutations in DNAH11 have been described as one cause of PCD with NU.The aim of our study was to describe the clinical characteristics of a large population of patients with PCD, in relation to the ultrastructural defect. Additionally, we aimed to demonstrate the need for biopsy and cell culture to reliably diagnose PCD, especially the NU subtype. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 89 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 10% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,528
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,198
of 320,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#25
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 320,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.