↓ Skip to main content

Post-Stroke Apathy and Hypersomnia Lead to Worse Outcomes from Acute Rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Stroke Research, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Post-Stroke Apathy and Hypersomnia Lead to Worse Outcomes from Acute Rehabilitation
Published in
Translational Stroke Research, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12975-013-0293-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ari L. Harris, Jessica Elder, Nicholas D. Schiff, Jonathan D. Victor, Andrew M. Goldfine

Abstract

Apathy and hypersomnia occur after stroke and, by definition, reduce participation in rehabilitation, but their effect on outcome from acute rehabilitation is not known. We performed a retrospective review of 213 patients admitted to a stroke-specialized acute rehabilitation unit in the United States. All patients had ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and no dementia or dependence on others pre-stroke. We diagnosed apathy and hypersomnia using standardized documentation by treating therapists. We used multiple regression analysis to control for overall impairment (combination of strength, cognitive and sensory measures), age, time since stroke, and stroke type (ischemic or hemorrhagic). Forty-four (21%) of the patients had persistent apathy, and 12 (5.6%) had persistent hypersomnia. Both groups were more impaired in cognition, sustained attention, and more likely to be treated for depression. Patients with apathy were 2.4 times more likely to go to a nursing home, and had discharge FIM scores 12 points below the mean. Patients with hypersomnia were ten times more likely to go to a nursing home, and had discharge FIM scores 16 points below the mean. These findings indicate that studies to prospectively define these clinical factors and potential confounds using standardized tools are indicated, and if confirmed, justify studies to identify these patients early and develop targeted interventions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Psychology 21 16%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 43 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 October 2019.
All research outputs
#14,184,832
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Translational Stroke Research
#200
of 434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,895
of 211,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Stroke Research
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 434 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 211,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.