| Title |
Systematic review of mirror therapy compared with conventional rehabilitation in upper extremity function in stroke survivors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1111/1440-1630.12342 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Pérez‐Cruzado, Jose Antonio Merchán‐Baeza, Manuel González‐Sánchez, Antonio I. Cuesta‐Vargas |
| Abstract |
Stroke is a leading cause of disability in developed countries. One of the most widespread techniques in clinical practice is mirror therapy (MT). To determine the effectiveness of MT over other methods of intervention in the recovery of upper limb function in people who have had a stroke. A systematic review was conducted. The search string was established based on the last systematic review about MT that dated from 2009: "upper extremity" OR "upper limb "AND "mirror therapy" AND stroke. For this search Pubmed, Scopus and SciELO databases were used. Fifteen studies were included in the systematic review. Recovery of the upper limb, upper limb function and gross manual dexterity were frequently measured in these studies. In the primary variables in promoting recovery, MT alone showed better results in acute and chronic stroke patients in upper limb functioning than either conventional rehabilitation (CR) or CR plus MT. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015026869. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 21 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 19% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Réunion | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 40 | 85% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 410 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 410 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 81 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 65 | 16% |
| Researcher | 28 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 24 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 58 | 14% |
| Unknown | 133 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 120 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 32 | 8% |
| Engineering | 17 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 6% |
| Unknown | 142 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 09 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,116,324
of 24,601,689 outputs
Outputs from Australian Occupational Therapy Journal
#13
of 715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,776
of 430,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Occupational Therapy Journal
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,601,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 430,742 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.