↓ Skip to main content

Difficult Diagnoses in Hyperkinetic Disorders – A Focused Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Difficult Diagnoses in Hyperkinetic Disorders – A Focused Review
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2012.00151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco Cardoso

Abstract

Hyperkinesias are heterogeneous conditions that share the feature of production of involuntary, abnormal, excessive movements. Tremor, dystonia, and chorea are amongst the most common of these phenomena. In this focused review there is a discussion of difficult issues in hyperkinesias. The first one is the differential diagnosis between essential tremor (ET) and Parkinson's disease (PD). They are readily distinguishable in the majority of patients but in a few subjects ET coexist with parkinsonian features whose underlying mechanism remains to be determined. The second topic of the review is dystonic tremor. Although increasingly diagnosed and reported as accounting for the majority of scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficits, its diagnostic criteria are ill-defined and differentiation from PD and ET can be challenging. In the last section, there is a discussion of the differential diagnosis of Sydenham's chorea (SC), the most common cause of chorea in children. In a few patients, vascular disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, and primary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can mimic SC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
India 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 41 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 14 30%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 39%
Neuroscience 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#18,319,742
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,628
of 11,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,993
of 244,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#76
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 244,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.