↓ Skip to main content

Congenital muscular dystrophy: from muscle to brain

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Congenital muscular dystrophy: from muscle to brain
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13052-016-0289-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raffaele Falsaperla, Andrea D. Praticò, Martino Ruggieri, Enrico Parano, Renata Rizzo, Giovanni Corsello, Giovanna Vitaliti, Piero Pavone

Abstract

Congenital muscular dystrophies (CMDs) are a wide group of muscular disorders that manifest with very early onset of muscular weakness, sometime associated to severe brain involvement.The histologic pattern of muscle anomalies is typical of dystrophic lesions but quite variable depending on the different stages and on the severity of the disorder.Recent classification of CMDs have been reported most of which based on the combination of clinical, biochemical, molecular and genetic findings, but genotype/phenotype correlation are in constant progression due to more diffuse utilization of the molecular analysis.In this article, the Authors report on CMDs belonging to the group of dystroglycanopathies and in particular on the most severe forms represented by the Fukuyama CMD, Muscle-Eye-Brain disease and Walker Walburg syndrome.Clinical diagnosis of infantile hypotonia is particularly difficult considering the different etiologic factors causing the lesions, the difficulty in localizing the involved CNS area (central vs. peripheral) and the limited role of the diagnostic procedures at this early age.The diagnostic evaluation is not easy mainly in differentiating the various types of CMDs, and represents a challenge for the neonatologists and pediatricians. Suggestions are reported on the way to reach a correct diagnosis with the appropriate use of the diagnostic means.

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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 13%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 42 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 11%
Neuroscience 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 47 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 31 May 2022.
All research outputs
#7,205,295
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#255
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,231
of 348,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 348,502 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.