↓ Skip to main content

What every psychiatrist should know about PANDAS: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 216)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
What every psychiatrist should know about PANDAS: a review
Published in
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/1745-0179-4-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Germana Moretti, Massimo Pasquini, Gabriele Mandarelli, Lorenzo Tarsitani, Massimo Biondi

Abstract

The term Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS) was coined by Swedo et al. in 1998 to describe a subset of childhood obsessive-compulsive disorders (OCD) and tic disorders triggered by group-A beta-hemolytic Streptococcus pyogenes infection. Like adult OCD, PANDAS is associated with basal ganglia dysfunction. Other putative pathogenetic mechanisms of PANDAS include molecular mimicry and autoimmune-mediated altered neuronal signaling, involving calcium-calmodulin dependent protein (CaM) kinase II activity. Nonetheless the contrasting results from numerous studies provide no consensus on whether PANDAS should be considered as a specific nosological entity or simply a useful research framework. Herein we discuss available data that could provide insight into pathophysiology of adult OCD, or might explain cases of treatment-resistance. We also review the latest research findings on diagnostic and treatment.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Germany 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Taiwan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 40%
Psychology 10 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 8 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,384,501
of 21,751,441 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health
#50
of 216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,294
of 149,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,751,441 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 149,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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