↓ Skip to main content

What to consider when pseudohypoparathyroidism is ruled out: iPPSD and differential diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
What to consider when pseudohypoparathyroidism is ruled out: iPPSD and differential diagnosis
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12881-018-0530-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arrate Pereda, Intza Garin, Spanish Network for Imprinting Disorders, Guiomar Perez de Nanclares

Abstract

Pseudohypoparathyroidism (PHP) is a rare disease whose phenotypic features are rather difficult to identify in some cases. Thus, although these patients may present with the Albright's hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO) phenotype, which is characterized by small stature, obesity with a rounded face, subcutaneous ossifications, mental retardation and brachydactyly, its manifestations are somewhat variable. Indeed, some of them present with a complete phenotype, whereas others show only subtle manifestations. In addition, the features of the AHO phenotype are not specific to it and a similar phenotype is also commonly observed in other syndromes. Brachydactyly type E (BDE) is the most specific and objective feature of the AHO phenotype, and several genes have been associated with syndromic BDE in the past few years. Moreover, these syndromes have a skeletal and endocrinological phenotype that overlaps with AHO/PHP. In light of the above, we have developed an algorithm to aid in genetic testing of patients with clinical features of AHO but with no causative molecular defect at the GNAS locus. Starting with the feature of brachydactyly, this algorithm allows the differential diagnosis to be broadened and, with the addition of other clinical features, can guide genetic testing. We reviewed our series of patients (n = 23) with a clinical diagnosis of AHO and with brachydactyly type E or similar pattern, who were negative for GNAS anomalies, and classify them according to the diagnosis algorithm to finally propose and analyse the most probable gene(s) in each case. A review of the clinical data for our series of patients, and subsequent analysis of the candidate gene(s), allowed detection of the underlying molecular defect in 12 out of 23 patients: five patients harboured a mutation in PRKAR1A, one in PDE4D, four in TRPS1 and two in PTHLH. This study confirmed that the screening of other genes implicated in syndromes with BDE and AHO or a similar phenotype is very helpful for establishing a correct genetic diagnosis for those patients who have been misdiagnosed with "AHO-like phenotype" with an unknown genetic cause, and also for better describing the characteristic and differential features of these less common syndromes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#1,315
of 2,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,003
of 346,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#26
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,444 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 346,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.