↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiology of isolated preaxial polydactyly type I: Data from the Polish Registry of Congenital Malformations (PRCM)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, February 2013
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Epidemiology of isolated preaxial polydactyly type I: Data from the Polish Registry of Congenital Malformations (PRCM)
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2431-13-26
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Materna-Kiryluk, Aleksander Jamsheer, Katarzyna Wisniewska, Barbara Wieckowska, Janusz Limon, Maria Borszewska-Kornacka, Henryka Sawulicka-Oleszczuk, Ewa Szwalkiewicz-Warowicka, Anna Latos-Bielenska

Abstract

Polydactyly represents a heterogeneous group of congenital hand and foot anomalies with variable clinical features and diverse etiology. Preaxial polydactyly type I (PPD1) is the most frequent form of preaxial polydactyly. The etiology of sporadic PPD1 remains largely unknown and the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors is not clearly defined. The primary goals of this study are twofold: (1) to examine the epidemiology and clinical features of sporadic PPD1 in comparison to a healthy control group, and (2) to contrast the characteristics of sporadic PPD1 with familial forms of isolated polydactyly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
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 06 March 2013.
All research outputs
#4,228,677
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#707
of 3,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,428
of 195,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#7
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 195,337 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.