↓ Skip to main content

Stepwise Approach to Myopathy in Systemic Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Stepwise Approach to Myopathy in Systemic Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2011.00049
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jasvinder Chawla

Abstract

Muscle diseases can constitute a large variety of both acquired and hereditary disorders. Myopathies in systemic disease results from several different disease processes including endocrine, inflammatory, paraneoplastic, infectious, drug- and toxin-induced, critical illness myopathy, metabolic, and myopathies with other systemic disorders. Patients with systemic myopathies often present acutely or sub acutely. On the other hand, familial myopathies or dystrophies generally present in a chronic fashion with exceptions of metabolic myopathies where symptoms on occasion can be precipitated acutely. Most of the inflammatory myopathies can have a chance association with malignant lesions; the incidence appears to be specifically increased only in patients with dermatomyositis. In dealing with myopathies associated with systemic illnesses, the focus will be on the acquired causes. Management is beyond the scope of this chapter. Prognosis is based upon the underlying cause and, most of the time, carries a good prognosis. In order to approach a patient with suspected myopathy from systemic disease, a stepwise approach is utilized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 129 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 49%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 23 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 September 2023.
All research outputs
#4,749,241
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,822
of 14,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,419
of 192,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#10
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,768 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 74% 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 192,379 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 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.