↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of genetic skeletal disorders reported in Chinese biomedical journals between 1978 and 2012

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A systematic review of genetic skeletal disorders reported in Chinese biomedical journals between 1978 and 2012
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-7-55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yazhou Cui, Heng Zhao, Zhenxing Liu, Chao Liu, Jing Luan, Xiaoyan Zhou, Jinxiang Han

Abstract

Little information is available on the prevalence, geographic distribution and mutation spectrum of genetic skeletal disorders (GSDs) in China. This study systematically reviewed GSDs as defined in "Nosology and Classification of genetic skeletal disorders (2010 version)" using Chinese biomedical literature published over the past 34 years from 1978 to 2012. In total, 16,099 GSDs have been reported. The most frequently reported disorders were Marfan syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, fibrous dysplasia, mucopolysaccharidosis, multiple cartilaginous exostoses, neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), osteopetrosis, achondroplasia, enchondromatosis (Ollier), and osteopoikilosis, accounting for 76.5% (12,312 cases) of the total cases. Five groups (group 8, 12, 14, 18, 21) defined by "Nosology and Classification of genetic skeletal disorders" have not been reported in the Chinese biomedical literature. Gene mutation testing was performed in only a minor portion of the 16,099 cases of GSDs (187 cases, 1.16%). In total, 37 genes for 41 different GSDs were reported in Chinese biomedical literature, including 43 novel mutations. This review revealed a significant imbalance in rare disease identification in terms of geographic regions and hospital levels, suggesting the need to create a national multi-level network to meet the specific challenge of care for rare diseases in China.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Philippines 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 12 25%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 15%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 23%
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 25 August 2012.
All research outputs
#13,134,992
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,319
of 2,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,900
of 169,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 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 2,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. 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 169,209 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 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.