↓ Skip to main content

Primary ciliary dyskinesia: critical evaluation of clinical symptoms and diagnosis in patients with normal and abnormal ultrastructure

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Primary ciliary dyskinesia: critical evaluation of clinical symptoms and diagnosis in patients with normal and abnormal ultrastructure
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-9-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boon M, Smits A, Cuppens H, Jaspers M, Proesmans M, Dupont LJ, Vermeulen FL, Van Daele S, Malfroot A, Godding V, Jorissen M, De Boeck K, Mieke Boon, Anne Smits, Harry Cuppens, Martine Jaspers, Marijke Proesmans, Lieven J Dupont, Francois L Vermeulen, Sabine Van Daele, Anne Malfroot, Veronique Godding, Mark Jorissen, Kris De Boeck

Abstract

Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare disorder with variable disease progression. To date, mutations in more than 20 different genes have been found. At present, PCD subtypes are described according to the ultrastructural defect on transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of the motile cilia. PCD with normal ultrastructure (NU) is rarely reported because it requires additional testing. Biallelic mutations in DNAH11 have been described as one cause of PCD with NU.The aim of our study was to describe the clinical characteristics of a large population of patients with PCD, in relation to the ultrastructural defect. Additionally, we aimed to demonstrate the need for biopsy and cell culture to reliably diagnose PCD, especially the NU subtype.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Other 8 10%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 9 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Engineering 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 12 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 February 2015.
All research outputs
#9,876,185
of 17,829,175 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#962
of 1,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,706
of 265,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#35
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,829,175 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 265,267 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.