↓ Skip to main content

The TAND checklist: a useful screening tool in children with tuberous sclerosis and neurofibromatosis type 1

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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 TAND checklist: a useful screening tool in children with tuberous sclerosis and neurofibromatosis type 1
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, September 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13023-020-01488-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Cervi, Veronica Saletti, Katherine Turner, Angela Peron, Sara Bulgheroni, Matilde Taddei, Francesca La Briola, Maria Paola Canevini, Aglaia Vignoli

Abstract

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) and Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) are neurocutaneous disorders commonly characterized by neuropsychiatric comorbidities. The TAND (Tuberous Sclerosis Associated Neuropsychiatric Disorders) Checklist is currently used to quickly screen for behavioural, psychiatric, intellectual, academic, neuropsychological and psychosocial manifestations in patients with TSC. We administered the authorized Italian version of the TAND Checklist to the parents of 42 TSC patients and 42 age- and sex-matched NF1 patients, for a total of 84 individuals, aged 4-20 years. Aims of this study: - to test the overall usability of the TAND Checklist in NF1, -to compare the results between children and adolescents with TSC and NF1, and -to examine the association between neuropsychiatric manifestations and severity of the phenotype in terms of epilepsy severity in the TSC cohort and disease severity according to the modified version of the Riccardi severity scale in the NF1 cohort. TSC cohort: 35.6% had Intellectual Disability (ID), 11.9% Specific Learning Disorders (SLD), 50.0% Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and 16.6% anxious/mood disorder. 33.3% had a formal diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Paying attention and concentrating (61.9%), impulsivity (54.8%), temper tantrums (54.8%), anxiety (45.2%), overactivity/hyperactivity (40.5%), aggressive outburst (40.5%), absent or delayed onset of language (40.5%), repetitive behaviors (35.7%), academic difficulties (> 40%), deficits in attention (61.9%) and executive skills (50.0%) were the most commonly reported problems. NF1 cohort: 9.5% had ID, 21.4% SLD, 46.6% ADHD, and 33.3% anxious/mood disorder. No one had a diagnosis of ASD. Commonly reported issues were paying attention and concentrating (59.5%), impulsivity (52.4%), anxiety (50.0%), overactivity/hyperactivity (38.1%), temper tantrums (38.1%), academic difficulties (> 40%), deficits in attention (59.5%), and executive skills (38.1%). Neuropsychiatric features in TSC vs NF1: Aggressive outburst and ASD features were reported significantly more frequently in TSC than in NF1. Neuropsychiatric manifestations and phenotype severity: Depressed mood, absent or delayed onset of language, repetitive language, difficulties in relationship with peers, repetitive behaviors, spelling, mathematics, dual-tasking, visuo-spatial tasks, executive skills, and getting disoriented were significantly different among TSC patients with different epilepsy severity. No statistically significant differences in the NF1 subgroups were noted for any of the items in the checklist. The TAND Checklist used for TSC is acceptable and feasible to complete in a clinical setting, and is able to detect the complexity of neuropsychiatric involvement in NF1 as well. NF1 is mainly characterized by an ADHD profile, anxiety problems and SLD, while ASD features are strongly associated with TSC. In conclusion, the TAND Checklist is a useful and feasible screening tool, in both TSC and NF1.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 48 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 12%
Neuroscience 13 12%
Psychology 11 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 49 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 September 2020.
All research outputs
#13,455,468
of 23,237,082 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,372
of 2,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,578
of 400,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#27
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,237,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 400,208 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 51% of its contemporaries.