↓ Skip to main content

Phosphomannomutase deficiency (PMM2-CDG): ataxia and cerebellar assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Phosphomannomutase deficiency (PMM2-CDG): ataxia and cerebellar assessment
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0358-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mercedes Serrano, Víctor de Diego, Jordi Muchart, Daniel Cuadras, Ana Felipe, Alfons Macaya, Ramón Velázquez, M. Pilar Poo, Carmen Fons, M. Mar O’Callaghan, Angels García-Cazorla, Cristina Boix, Bernabé Robles, Francisco Carratalá, Marisa Girós, Paz Briones, Laura Gort, Rafael Artuch, Celia Pérez-Cerdá, Jaak Jaeken, Belén Pérez, Belén Pérez-Dueñas

Abstract

Phosphomannomutase deficiency (PMM2-CDG) is the most frequent congenital disorder of glycosylation. The cerebellum is nearly always affected in PMM2-CDG patients, a cerebellar atrophy progression is observed, and cerebellar dysfunction is their main daily functional limitation. Different therapeutic agents are under development, and clinical evaluation of drug candidates will require a standardized score of cerebellar dysfunction. We aim to assess the validity of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) in children and adolescents with genetically confirmed PMM2-CDG deficiency. We compare ICARS results with the Nijmegen Pediatric CDG Rating Scale (NPCRS), neuroimaging, intelligence quotient (IQ) and molecular data. Our observational study included 13 PMM2-CDG patients and 21 control subjects. Ethical permissions and informed consents were obtained. Three independent child neurologists rated PMM2-CDG patients and control subjects using the ICARS. A single clinician administered the NPCRS. All patients underwent brain MRI, and the relative diameter of the midsagittal vermis was measured. Psychometric evaluations were available in six patients. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare ICARS between patients and controls. To evaluate inter-observer agreement in patients' ICARS ratings, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. ICARS internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient test was used to correlate ICARS with NPCRS, midsagittal vermis relative diameter and IQ. ICARS and ICARS subscores differed between patients and controls (p < 0.001). Interobserver agreement of ICARS was "almost perfect" (ICC = 0.99), with a "good" internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.72). ICARS was significantly correlated with the total NPCRS score (rs 0.90, p < 0.001). However, there was no agreement regarding categories of severity. Regarding neuroimaging, inverse correlations between ICARS and midsagittal vermis relative diameter (rs -0.85, p = 0.003) and IQ (rs -0.94, p = 0.005) were found. Patients bearing p.E93A, p.C241S or p.R162W mutations presented a milder phenotype. ICARS is a reliable instrument for assessment of PMM2-CDG patients, without significant inter-rater variability. Despite our limited sample size, the results show a good correlation between functional cerebellar assessment, IQ and neuroimagingFor the first a correlation between ICARS, neuroimaging and IQ in PMM2-CDG patients has been demonstrated.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 27 35%
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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,725,989
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#708
of 2,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,798
of 284,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#12
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 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 2,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 284,375 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 74% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.