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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Findings, phenotypes, and outcomes in Freeman-Sheldon and Sheldon-Hall syndromes and distal arthrogryposis types 1 and 3: protocol for systematic review and patient-level data meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0444-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mikaela I. Poling, José Andrés Morales Corado, Robert L. Chamberlain |
| Abstract |
Freeman-Sheldon and Sheldon-Hall syndromes (FSS and SHS) and distal arthrogryposis types 1 and 3 (DA1 and DA3) are rare, often confused, congenital syndromes. Few studies exist. With reported diagnosis unreliable, it would be scientifically inappropriate to consider articles describing FSS, SHS, DA1, or DA3, unless diagnoses were independently verified, rendering conventional systematic review and meta-analysis methodology inappropriate and necessitating patient-level data analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42015024740). As part of a clinical practise guideline development process, we evaluate (1) diagnostic accuracy from 1938-2017, using the Stevenson criteria; (2) the most common physical findings, possible frequency clusters, and complications of physical findings amongst patients with FSS; and (3) treatment types and outcomes. All papers reporting diagnosis of FSS, SHS, DA1, and DA3 are included in searching PubMed and Google Scholar from December 2014 to July 2015 and again before final analyses. Patients with FSS are divided into four phenotype-defined sub-types; all patients are grouped by published diagnosis and medical speciality. Significance of physical findings and historical data is evaluated by chi-square. Associations of physical findings and history with diagnosis and treatment outcome are evaluated by Pearson correlation and linear regression analysis. Two-tailed alpha level of 0.05 is used throughout. The need for detailed patient-level data extraction may limit the types of articles included and questions able to be answered. For treatment and psychosocial health outcomes, we anticipate enhanced difficulties, which may limit significance, power, and results' usability. We hope to outline knowledge gaps and prioritise areas for clinical investigation. CRD42015024740 Universal Trial Number: U1111-1172-4670. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 43% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,451,425
of 23,427,600 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,303
of 2,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,673
of 312,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#37
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,427,600 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,034 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 312,363 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.