↓ Skip to main content

Congenital contractural arachnodactyly (Beals syndrome)

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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 contractural arachnodactyly (Beals syndrome)
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, June 2006
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-1-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ergül Tunçbilek, Yasemin Alanay

Abstract

Congenital contractural arachnodactyly (Beals syndrome) is an autosomal dominantly inherited connective tissue disorder characterized by multiple flexion contractures, arachnodactyly, severe kyphoscoliosis, abnormal pinnae and muscular hypoplasia. It is caused by a mutation in FBN2 gene on chromosome 5q23. Although the clinical features can be similar to Marfan syndrome (MFS), multiple joint contractures (especially elbow, knee and finger joints), and crumpled ears in the absence of significant aortic root dilatation are characteristic of Beals syndrome and rarely found in Marfan syndrome. The incidence of CCA is unknown and its prevalence is difficult to estimate considering the overlap in phenotype with MFS; the number of patients reported has increased following the identification of FBN2 mutation. Molecular prenatal diagnosis is possible. Ultrasound imaging may be used to demonstrate joint contractures and hypokinesia in suspected cases. Management of children with CCA is symptomatic. Spontaneous improvement in camptodactyly and contractures is observed but residual camptodactyly always remains. Early intervention for scoliosis can prevent morbidity later in life. Cardiac evaluation and ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Other 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,544,661
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#911
of 2,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,232
of 65,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#7
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 65,193 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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.