↓ Skip to main content

Robotic Rehabilitation and Spinal Cord Injury: a Narrative Review

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
369 Mendeley
Title
Robotic Rehabilitation and Spinal Cord Injury: a Narrative Review
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13311-018-0642-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marwa Mekki, Andrew D Delgado, Adam Fry, David Putrino, Vincent Huang

Abstract

Mobility after spinal cord injury (SCI) is among the top goals of recovery and improvement in quality of life. Those with tetraplegia rank hand function as the most important area of recovery in their lives, and those with paraplegia, walking. Without hand function, emphasis in rehabilitation is placed on accessing one's environment through technology. However, there is still much reliance on caretakers for many activities of daily living. For those with paraplegia, if incomplete, orthoses exist to augment walking function, but they require a significant amount of baseline strength and significant energy expenditure to use. Options for those with motor complete paraplegia have traditionally been limited to the wheelchair. While wheelchairs provide a modified level of independence, wheelchair users continue to face difficulties in access and mobility. In the past decade, research in SCI rehabilitation has expanded to include external motorized or robotic devices that initiate or augment movement. These robotic devices are used with 2 goals: to enhance recovery through repetitive, functional movement and increased neural plasticity and to act as a mobility aid beyond orthoses and wheelchairs. In addition, lower extremity exoskeletons have been shown to provide benefits to the secondary medical conditions after SCI such as pain, spasticity, decreased bone density, and neurogenic bowel. In this review, we discuss advances in robot-guided rehabilitation after SCI for the upper and lower extremities, as well as potential adjuncts to robotics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 369 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 11%
Student > Master 38 10%
Student > Bachelor 32 9%
Researcher 30 8%
Student > Postgraduate 15 4%
Other 44 12%
Unknown 168 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 69 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 8%
Neuroscience 13 4%
Sports and Recreations 12 3%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 181 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,037,514
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#675
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,518
of 341,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 341,682 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.