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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The efficacy of SMART Arm training early after stroke for stroke survivors withsevere upper limb disability: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neurology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2377-13-71 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sandra G Brauer, Kathryn S Hayward, Richard G Carson, Andrew G Cresswell, Ruth N Barker |
| Abstract |
Recovery of upper limb function after stroke is poor. The acute to subacute phase after stroke is the optimal time window to promote the recovery of upper limb function. The dose and content of training provided conventionally during this phase is however, unlikely to be adequate to drive functional recovery, especially in the presence of severe motor disability. The current study concerns an approach to address this shortcoming, through evaluation of the SMART Arm, a non-robotic device that enables intensive and repetitive practice of reaching by stroke survivors with severe upper limb disability, with the aim of improving upper limb function. The outcomes of SMART Arm training with or without outcome-triggered electrical stimulation (OT-stim) to augment movement and usual therapy will be compared to usual therapy alone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 249 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 17% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 13% |
| Unknown | 68 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 6% |
| Engineering | 14 | 6% |
| Psychology | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 14% |
| Unknown | 79 | 31% |
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 02 July 2013.
All research outputs
#14,755,210
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,351
of 2,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,711
of 194,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#39
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 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 2,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 194,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.