↓ Skip to main content

Utero-vaginal aplasia (Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome) associated with deletions in known DiGeorge or DiGeorge-like loci

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2011
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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.
Title
Utero-vaginal aplasia (Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome) associated with deletions in known DiGeorge or DiGeorge-like loci
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-6-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karine Morcel, Tanguy Watrin, Laurent Pasquier, Lucie Rochard, Cédric Le Caignec, Christèle Dubourg, Philippe Loget, Bernard-Jean Paniel, Sylvie Odent, Véronique David, Isabelle Pellerin, Claude Bendavid, Daniel Guerrier

Abstract

Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome is characterized by congenital aplasia of the uterus and the upper part of the vagina in women showing normal development of secondary sexual characteristics and a normal 46, XX karyotype. The uterovaginal aplasia is either isolated (type I) or more frequently associated with other malformations (type II or Müllerian Renal Cervico-thoracic Somite (MURCS) association), some of which belong to the malformation spectrum of DiGeorge phenotype (DGS). Its etiology remains poorly understood. Thus the phenotypic manifestations of MRKH and DGS overlap suggesting a possible genetic link. This would potentially have clinical consequences.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 8%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 21 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 29%
Student > Master 5 21%
Researcher 4 17%
Professor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,192,348
of 12,002,078 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#136
of 1,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,015
of 193,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#7
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,002,078 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 193,124 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.