| Title |
Current concepts and future approaches to vestibular rehabilitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-015-7914-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fredrik Tjernström, Oz Zur, Klaus Jahn |
| Abstract |
Over the last decades methods of vestibular rehabilitation to enhance adaptation to vestibular loss, habituation to changing sensory conditions, and sensory reweighting in the compensation process have been developed. However, the use of these techniques still depends to a large part on the educational background of the therapist. Individualized assessment of deficits and specific therapeutic programs for different disorders are sparse. Currently, vestibular rehabilitation is often used in an unspecific way in dizzy patients irrespective of the clinical findings. When predicting the future of vestibular rehabilitation, it is tempting to foretell advances in technology for assessment and treatment only, but the current intense exchange between clinicians and basic scientists also predicts advances in truly understanding the complex interactions between the peripheral senses and central adaptation mechanisms. More research is needed to develop reliable techniques to measure sensory dependence and to learn how this knowledge can be best used-by playing off the patient's sensory strength or working on the weakness. To be able using the emerging concepts, the neuro-otological community must strive to educate physicians, physiotherapists and nurses to perform the correct examinations for assessment of individual deficits and to look for factors that might impede rehabilitation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| Belgium | 2 | 20% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 205 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 13% |
| Researcher | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 41 | 20% |
| Unknown | 44 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 60 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 50 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,994,946
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,303
of 4,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,792
of 305,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#32
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 305,044 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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 61% of its contemporaries.