↓ Skip to main content

Diagnoses behind patients with hard-to-classify tremor and normal DaT-SPECT: a clinical follow up study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2014
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
1 X user
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Diagnoses behind patients with hard-to-classify tremor and normal DaT-SPECT: a clinical follow up study
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Menéndez-González, Francisco Tavares, Nahla Zeidan, José M. Salas-Pacheco, Oscar Arias-Carrión

Abstract

The [(123)I]ioflupane-a dopamine transporter radioligand-SPECT (DaT-SPECT) has proven to be useful in the differential diagnosis of tremor. Here, we investigate the diagnoses behind patients with hard-to-classify tremor and normal DaT-SPECT. Therefore, 30 patients with tremor and normal DaT-SPECT were followed up for 2 years. In 18 cases we were able to make a diagnosis. The residual 12 patients underwent a second DaT-SPECT, were then followed for additional 12 months and thereafter the diagnosis was reconsidered again. The final diagnoses included cases of essential tremor, dystonic tremor, multisystem atrophy, vascular parkinsonism, progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal degeneration, fragile X-associated tremor ataxia syndrome, psychogenic parkinsonism, iatrogenic parkinsonism and Parkinson's disease. However, for 6 patients the diagnosis remained uncertain. Larger series are needed to better establish the relative frequency of the different conditions behind these cases.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Other 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 43%
Neuroscience 9 15%
Psychology 6 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 12 20%
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 21 April 2014.
All research outputs
#13,407,734
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,938
of 4,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,856
of 226,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#26
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 226,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.