↓ Skip to main content

Misdiagnosis of inclusion body myositis: two case reports and a retrospective chart review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Misdiagnosis of inclusion body myositis: two case reports and a retrospective chart review
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13256-015-0647-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amaiak Chilingaryan, Richard A. Rison, Said R. Beydoun

Abstract

Sporadic inclusion body myositis is the most common adult myopathy in persons aged 50 years and older. The clinical presentation includes a chronic, slowly progressive course with a predilection for weakness of the forearm flexors and quadriceps muscles. Its indolent course makes it a disease frequently missed or misdiagnosed as other neuromuscular conditions by health care professionals. The degenerative processes with amyloid accumulation distinguish sporadic inclusion body myositis from other inflammatory myopathies. Currently, no effective therapy exists. This clinical report highlights the difficulties in diagnosing the disease, examples of misdiagnosis, and inappropriate therapies that can result from misdiagnosis. We present our clinical experience with 20 patients over a 10-year period and describe in depth two cases, both men, one of Indian ethnicity and the other of Hispanic ethnicity, who were referred to our neuromuscular division for second opinions and diagnosed with sporadic inclusion body myositis years after symptom onset. Although sporadic inclusion body myositis is rare and without effective therapy, accurate diagnosis is crucial to providing adequate counseling and information about the prognosis and disease course, and to avoiding inappropriate therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,234,315
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,109
of 3,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,414
of 264,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#15
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,917 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 264,389 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 65% of its contemporaries.