↓ Skip to main content

Standing Practice In Rehabilitation Early after Stroke (SPIRES): a functional standing frame programme (prolonged standing and repeated sit to stand) to improve function and quality of life and…

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
Title
Standing Practice In Rehabilitation Early after Stroke (SPIRES): a functional standing frame programme (prolonged standing and repeated sit to stand) to improve function and quality of life and reduce neuromuscular impairment in people with severe sub-acute stroke—a protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40814-018-0254-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angie Logan, Jennifer Freeman, Bridie Kent, Jillian Pooler, Siobhan Creanor, Jane Vickery, Doyo Enki, Andrew Barton, Jonathan Marsden

Abstract

The most common physical deficit caused by a stroke is muscle weakness which limits a person's mobility. Mobility encompasses activities necessary for daily functioning: getting in and out bed, on/off toilet, sitting, standing and walking. These activities are significantly affected in people with severe stroke who typically spend most of their time in bed or a chair and are immobile. Immobility is primarily caused by neurological damage but exacerbated by secondary changes in musculoskeletal and cardiorespiratory systems. These secondary changes can theoretically be prevented or minimised by early mobilisation, in this case standing up early post-stroke.Standing up early post-stroke has been identified as an important priority for people who have suffered a severe stroke. However, trials of prolonged passive standing have not demonstrated any functional improvements. Conversely, task-specific training such as repeated sit-to-stand has demonstrated positive functional benefits. This feasibility trial combines prolonged standing and task-specific strength training with the aim of determining whether this novel combination of physiotherapy interventions is feasible for people with severe stroke as well as the overall feasibility of delivering the trial. This is a pragmatic multi-centre parallel single-blinded two-armed feasibility randomised controlled trial. Fifty people with a diagnosis of severe stroke will be randomly allocated to either the functional standing frame programme or usual physiotherapy. All patient participants will be assessed at baseline and followed up at 3 weeks, then 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. Trial objectives are to determine the feasibility according to the following indicators:: (i) Process: recruitment and retention rate, ability to consent, eligibility criteria, willingness/ability of physiotherapists to recruit, willingness of patients to be randomised, and acceptability of the intervention; (ii) Resource: burden and potential costs; (iii) Management: treatment fidelity, participant adherence, acceptability and completeness of outcome measures, impact and management or orthostatic hypotension; and (iv) Safety: number and nature of adverse and serious adverse events. The functional standing frame programme addresses a key concern for people who have suffered a severe stroke. However, several uncertainties exist which need to be understood prior to progressing to a full-scale trial, including acceptability and tolerance of the functional standing frame programme intervention and practicality of the trial procedures. This feasibility trial will provide important insights to resolve these uncertainties. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN15412695. Registration on 19 December 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 20%
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 9 5%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 56 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 48 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 12%
Sports and Recreations 11 6%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 65 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 March 2022.
All research outputs
#6,235,042
of 25,393,071 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#369
of 1,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,460
of 346,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#12
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 346,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.