↓ Skip to main content

Multiple Sites Ultrasonography of Peripheral Nerves in Differentiating Charcot–Marie–Tooth Type 1A from Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Multiple Sites Ultrasonography of Peripheral Nerves in Differentiating Charcot–Marie–Tooth Type 1A from Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00181
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jingwen Niu, Liying Cui, Mingsheng Liu

Abstract

Multiple sites measurement of cross-sectional areas (CSA) by ultrasound was performed to differentiate Charcot-Marie-Tooth type 1A (CMT1A) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). Nine patients with CMT1A, 28 patients with CIDP, and 14 healthy controls (HC) were recruited prospectively. Consecutive ultrasonography scanning was performed from wrist to axilla on median and ulnar nerves. CSAs were measured at 10 predetermined sites of each nerve. CMT1A had significantly larger CSAs at all sites of median and ulnar nerves (p < 0.01). In CMT1A, CSAs increased gradually and homogeneously from distal to proximal along the nerve, except potential entrapment sites. CIDP displayed three different morphological patterns, including mild enlargement in 15 patients, prominent segmental enlargement in 12, and slight enlargement in 1, among which different treatment responses were observed. All patients with mild nerve enlargement treated with intravenous immunoglobulin were responsive (7/7), while less than half of those with prominent segmental enlargement (3/7) were responsive (p < 0.01). Consecutive scan along the nerve and multiple sites measurement by ultrasound could supply more detailed morphological feature of the nerve and help to differentiate CMT1A from CIDP.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 30%
Neuroscience 7 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,868
of 11,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,630
of 310,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#133
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,852 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 310,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.