↓ Skip to main content

Sensory stimulation for brain injured individuals in coma or vegetative state

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Sensory stimulation for brain injured individuals in coma or vegetative state
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco FL Lombardi, Mariangela Taricco, Antonio De Tanti, Elena Telaro, Alessandro Liberati

Abstract

Coma and vegetative state follow traumatic brain injury in about one out of eight patients, and in patients with non traumatic injury the prognosis is worse. The use of sensory stimulation for coma and vegetative state has gained popularity during the 1980's but beliefs and opinions about its effectiveness vary substantially among health professionals. To assess the effectiveness of sensory stimulation programmes in patients in coma or vegetative state. We searched the Injuries Group specialised register, the Cochrane Controlled trials register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PSYCHLIT from 1966 to January 2002, without language restriction. Reference lists of articles were scanned and we contacted experts in the area to find other relevant studies. Randomised or controlled trials that compared sensory stimulation programmes with standard rehabilitation in patients in coma or vegetative state. Abstracts and papers found were screened by one reviewer. Three reviewers independently identified relevant studies, extracted data and assessed study quality resolving disagreement by consensus. Three studies were identified with 68 patients in total. The overall methodological quality was poor and studies differed widely in terms of outcomes measures, study design and conduct. We therefore did not carry out any quantitative synthesis but reviewed results of available studies qualitatively. This systematic review indicates that there is no reliable evidence to support, or rule out, the effectiveness of multisensory programmes in patients in coma or vegetative state.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 105 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 26%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 18%
Neuroscience 10 9%
Psychology 7 6%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 21 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,428,136
of 15,606,390 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,104
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,976
of 268,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,390 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 268,931 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 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 50% of its contemporaries.