↓ Skip to main content

Proprioceptive precision is impaired in Ehlers–Danlos syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 1,877)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Proprioceptive precision is impaired in Ehlers–Danlos syndrome
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1089-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly A Clayton, Stephanie A H Jones, Denise Y P Henriques

Abstract

It has been suggested that people with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), or other similar connective tissue disorders, may have proprioceptive impairments, the reason for which is still unknown. We recently found that EDS patients were less precise than healthy controls when estimating their felt hand's position relative to visible peripheral reference locations, and that this deficit was positively correlated with the severity of joint hypermobility. We further explore proprioceptive abilities in EDS by having patients localize their non-dominant left hand at a greater number of workspace locations than in our previous study. Additionally, we explore the relationship between chronic pain and proprioceptive sensitivity. We found that, although patients were just as accurate as controls, they were not as precise. Patients showed twice as much scatter than controls at all locations, but the degree of scatter did not positively correlate with chronic pain scores. This further supports the idea that a proprioceptive impairment pertaining to precision is present in EDS, but may not relate to the magnitude of chronic pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 11 14%
Other 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 25 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Neuroscience 8 10%
Sports and Recreations 7 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 26 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 17 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,033,168
of 25,836,587 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#40
of 1,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,072
of 277,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#2
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,836,587 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 277,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.