| Title |
Motor cortex rTMS improves dexterity in relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Neurologica Belgica, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13760-015-0540-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eman Elzamarany, Lamia Afifi, Neveen M. El-Fayoumy, Husam Salah, Mona Nada |
| Abstract |
The motor cortex (MC) receives an excitatory input from the cerebellum which is reduced in patients with cerebellar lesions. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) induces cortical facilitation which can counteract the reduced cerebellar drive to the MC. Our study included 24 relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) patients with dysmetria. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A received two sessions of real MC rTMS and Group B received one session of real rTMS and one session of sham rTMS. Ten healthy volunteers formed group C. Evaluation was carried out using the nine-hole pegboard task and the cerebellar functional system score (FSS) of the expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Group A patients showed a significant improvement in the time required to finish the pegboard task (P = 0.002) and in their cerebellar FSS (P = 0.000) directly after the second session and 1 month later. The RRMS patients showed more improvement than the SPMS patients. Group B patients did not show any improvement in the pegboard task or the cerebellar FSS. These results indicate that MC rTMS can be a promising option in treating both RRMS or SPMS patients with cerebellar impairment and that its effect can be long-lasting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 22% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 11 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neurologica Belgica
#365
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,240
of 271,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neurologica Belgica
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 271,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.