↓ Skip to main content

Phantom motor execution as a treatment for phantom limb pain: protocol of an international, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, July 2018
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 Mendeley
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.
Title
Phantom motor execution as a treatment for phantom limb pain: protocol of an international, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial
Published in
BMJ Open, July 2018
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Lendaro, Liselotte Hermansson, Helena Burger, Corry K Van der Sluis, Brian E McGuire, Monika Pilch, Lina Bunketorp-Käll, Katarzyna Kulbacka-Ortiz, Ingrid Rignér, Anita Stockselius, Lena Gudmundson, Cathrine Widehammar, Wendy Hill, Sybille Geers, Max Ortiz-Catalan

Abstract

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a chronic condition that can greatly diminish quality of life. Control over the phantom limb and exercise of such control have been hypothesised to reverse maladaptive brain changes correlated to PLP. Preliminary investigations have shown that decoding motor volition using myoelectric pattern recognition, while providing real-time feedback via virtual and augmented reality (VR-AR), facilitates phantom motor execution (PME) and reduces PLP. Here we present the study protocol for an international (seven countries), multicentre (nine clinics), double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of PME in alleviating PLP. Sixty-seven subjects suffering from PLP in upper or lower limbs are randomly assigned to PME or phantom motor imagery (PMI) interventions. Subjects allocated to either treatment receive 15 interventions and are exposed to the same VR-AR environments using the same device. The only difference between interventions is whether phantom movements are actually performed (PME) or just imagined (PMI). Complete evaluations are conducted at baseline and at intervention completion, as well as 1, 3 and 6 months later using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach. Changes in PLP measured using the Pain Rating Index between the first and last session are the primary measure of efficacy. Secondary outcomes include: frequency, duration, quality of pain, intrusion of pain in activities of daily living and sleep, disability associated to pain, pain self-efficacy, frequency of depressed mood, presence of catastrophising thinking, health-related quality of life and clinically significant change as patient's own impression. Follow-up interviews are conducted up to 6 months after the treatment. The study is performed in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki and under approval by the governing ethical committees of each participating clinic. The results will be published according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines in a peer-reviewed journal. NCT03112928; Pre-results.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 17%
Student > Master 34 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Researcher 21 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 4%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 90 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 39 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 9%
Engineering 22 9%
Psychology 20 8%
Neuroscience 14 5%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 100 39%
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 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#16,962
of 25,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,383
of 339,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#373
of 587 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,597 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 339,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 587 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.