↓ Skip to main content

The dimensionality of fatigue in Parkinson’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
The dimensionality of fatigue in Parkinson’s disease
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1554-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond Chong, Lauren Albor, Chandramohan Wakade, John Morgan

Abstract

Fatigue is a common problem among individuals with Parkinson's disease (PD). It may occur before the overt symptoms of bradykinesia, rigidity and tremor. Little is understood about how to measure fatigue in PD. Here we determined the dimensionality of the constructs of fatigue. Four recommended scales, the Fatigue Severity Scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, Parkinson Fatigue Scale and Visual Analog Fatigue Scale (VAFS) were tested against quality of life measures including cognition, depression, sleep, life orientation, physical activity and PD symptoms in 22 PD subjects and 15 caregivers. Fatigue was associated with many quality of life variables, with the PDQ-39 summary index showing the strongest association. PD subjects agreed more strongly than caregivers that they experienced higher levels of fatigue. 27% of PD subjects rated fatigue as one of their top three most bothersome symptoms. The constructs of fatigue was captured within one dimension which explained 67% of the total variance, of which the VAFS showed the highest internal consistency. The highest likelihood ratio gave a cut-off score of < 5.5 on the VAFS. The change in scores required to produce a perceptible difference or is grossly observable ranged between 1.4 and 2.2 points respectively. The potential utility of a single measure such as the VAFS in PD that is reliably correlated with quality of life is consistent with the pursuit to develop clinical tests and measurements that are accessible, easy to use and universally interpretable across health science disciplines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Unspecified 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 15 25%

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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,979,880
of 13,248,851 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,291
of 2,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,116
of 266,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,248,851 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 266,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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