Olympia Kremmyda, Hanni Kirchner, Stefan Glasauer, Thomas Brandt, Klaus Jahn, Michael Strupp
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the findings of the bedside head-impulse test (HIT), passive head rotation gain, and caloric irrigation in patients with cerebellar ataxia (CA). In 16 patients with CA and bilaterally pathological bedside HIT, vestibuloocular reflex (VOR) gains were measured during HIT and passive head rotation by scleral search coil technique. Eight of the patients had pathologically reduced caloric responsiveness, while the other eight had normal caloric responses. Those with normal calorics showed a slightly reduced HIT gain (mean ± SD: 0.73 ± 0.15). In those with pathological calorics, gains 80 and 100 ms after the HIT as well as the passive rotation VOR gains were significantly lower. The corrective saccade after head turn occurred earlier in patients with pathological calorics (111 ± 62 ms after onset of the HIT) than in those with normal calorics (191 ± 17 ms, p = 0.0064). We identified two groups of patients with CA: those with an isolated moderate HIT deficit only, probably due to floccular dysfunction, and those with combined HIT, passive rotation, and caloric deficit, probably due to a peripheral vestibular deficit. From a clinical point of view, these results show that the bedside HIT alone can be false-positive for establishing a diagnosis of a bilateral peripheral vestibular deficit in patients with CA.
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 February 2013.
All research outputs
#15,205,711
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,565
of 11,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,877
of 244,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#63
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. 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 244,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
