Home › Research › Risk factors
Does corticobasal degeneration exist? A clinicopathological re-evaluation
Ling H, O'Sullivan SS, Holton JL, Revesz T, Massey LA, Williams DR, Paviour DC, Lees AJ.. Brain : a journal of neurology, 2010-07-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
The pathological findings of corticobasal degeneration are associated with several distinct clinical syndromes, and the corticobasal syndrome has been linked with a number of diverse pathologies. Despite these diagnostic difficulties we conclude that corticobasal degeneration is a discrete clinicopathological entity but with a broader clinical spectrum than was originally proposed.
Key findings
- The pathological findings of corticobasal degeneration are associated with several distinct clinical syndromes, and the corticobasal syndrome has been linked with a number of diverse pathologies.
- Despite these diagnostic difficulties we conclude that corticobasal degeneration is a discrete clinicopathological entity but with a broader clinical spectrum than was originally proposed.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Effect size26.3%; 23.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 20584946) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Ling, H., O'Sullivan, S. S., Holton, J. L., Revesz, T., Massey, L. A., Williams, D. R., et al. (2010). Does corticobasal degeneration exist? A clinicopathological re-evaluation. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq123
Vancouver
Ling H, O'Sullivan SS, Holton JL, Revesz T, Massey LA, Williams DR, et al. Does corticobasal degeneration exist? A clinicopathological re-evaluation. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2010. doi:10.1093/brain/awq123. PMID: 20584946.
BibTeX
@article{ling2010-20584946,
author = {Ling, H. and O'Sullivan, S. S. and Holton, J. L. and Revesz, T. and Massey, L. A. and Williams, D. R. and Paviour, D. C. and Lees, A. J.},
title = {{Does corticobasal degeneration exist? A clinicopathological re-evaluation}},
journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1093/brain/awq123},
pmid = {20584946},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq123}
}
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “hydrocephalus”
73 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hydrocephalus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 73 tagged studies.