↓ Skip to main content

Music therapy for acquired brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
759 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Music therapy for acquired brain injury
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006787.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bradt, Joke, Magee, Wendy L, Dileo, Cheryl, Wheeler, Barbara L, McGilloway, Emer

Abstract

Acquired brain injury (ABI) can result in impairments in motor function, language, cognition, sensory processing and emotional disturbances. This may severely reduce a survivor's quality of life. Music therapy has been used in rehabilitation to stimulate brain functions involved in movement, cognition, speech, emotions and sensory perceptions. A systematic review is needed to gauge the efficacy of music therapy as a rehabilitation intervention for people with ABI. To examine the effects of music therapy with standard care versus standard care alone or standard care combined with other therapies on gait, upper extremity function, communication, mood and emotions, social skills, pain, behavioral outcomes, activities of daily living and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (July 2009), EMBASE (August 2009), CINAHL (March 2010), PsycINFO (July 2009), LILACS (August 2009), AMED (August 2009) and Science Citation Index (August 2009). We handsearched music therapy journals and conference proceedings, searched dissertation and specialist music databases, trials and research registers, reference lists, and contacted experts and music therapy associations. There was no language restriction. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared music therapy interventions and standard care with standard care alone or combined with other therapies for people older than 16 years of age who had acquired brain damage of a non-degenerative nature and were participating in treatment programs offered in hospital, outpatient or community settings. Two review authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We present results using mean differences (using post-test scores) as all outcomes were measured with the same scale. We included seven studies (184 participants). The results suggest that rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) may be beneficial for improving gait parameters in stroke patients, including gait velocity, cadence, stride length and gait symmetry. These results were based on two studies that received a low risk of bias score. There were insufficient data to examine the effect of music therapy on other outcomes. RAS may be beneficial for gait improvement in people with stroke. These results are encouraging, but more RCTs are needed before recommendations can be made for clinical practice. More research is needed to examine the effects of music therapy on other outcomes in people with ABI.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 759 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 728 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 118 16%
Student > Master 113 15%
Researcher 78 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 10%
Other 33 4%
Other 131 17%
Unknown 213 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 18%
Psychology 134 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 64 8%
Neuroscience 48 6%
Arts and Humanities 37 5%
Other 115 15%
Unknown 226 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,764,347
of 31,990,159 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,737
of 14,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,609
of 138,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,990,159 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. 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 138,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.