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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Enzyme replacement therapy and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation at diagnosis in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I: results of a European consensus procedure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-6-55 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Minke H de Ru, Jaap J Boelens, Anibh M Das, Simon A Jones, Johanna H van der Lee, Nizar Mahlaoui, Eugen Mengel, Martin Offringa, Anne O'Meara, Rossella Parini, Attilio Rovelli, Karl-Walter Sykora, Vassili Valayannopoulos, Ashok Vellodi, Robert F Wynn, Frits A Wijburg |
| Abstract |
Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is a lysosomal storage disorder that results in the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans causing progressive multi-organ dysfunction. Its clinical spectrum is very broad and varies from the severe Hurler phenotype (MPS I-H) which is characterized by early and progressive central nervous system (CNS) involvement to the attenuated Scheie phenotype (MPS I-S) with no CNS involvement. Indication, optimal timing, safety and efficacy of the two available treatment options for MPS I, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), are subject to continuing debate. A European consensus procedure was organized to reach consensus about the use of these two treatment strategies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 182 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 14% |
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 22% |
| Unknown | 47 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 20 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Unknown | 54 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,428,092
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#576
of 2,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,648
of 120,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 120,705 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them