↓ Skip to main content

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
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 (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation for activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011968.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryo Momosaki, Naoki Yamada, Erika Ota, Masahiro Abo

Abstract

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) is a form of therapy that creates painless stimulation of deep muscle structures to improve motor function in people with physical impairment from brain or nerve disorders. Use of rPMS for people after stroke has been identified as a feasible approach to improve activities of daily living and functional ability. However, no systematic reviews have assessed the findings of available trials. The effect and safety of this intervention for people after stroke currently remain uncertain. To assess the effect of rPMS for improving activities of daily living and functional ability in people after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (August 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (August 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (November 2016), Embase Ovid (August 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) in Ebsco (August 2016), PsycINFO Ovid (August 2016), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) Ovid (August 2016), Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence (OTseeker) (August 2016), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (October 2016), and ICHUSHI Web (October 2016). We also searched five ongoing trial registries, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to assess the therapeutic effect of rPMS for people after stroke. Comparisons eligible for inclusion were (1) active rPMS only compared with 'sham' rPMS (a very weak form of stimulation or a sound only); (2) active rPMS only compared with no intervention; (3) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with sham rPMS plus rehabilitation; and (4) active rPMS plus rehabilitation compared with rehabilitation only. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. The same review authors assessed methods and risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to ask for unpublished information if necessary. We resolved all disagreements through discussion. We included three trials (two RCTs and one cross-over trial) involving 121 participants. Blinding of participants and physicians was well reported in all trials, and overall risk of bias was low. We found no clear effect of rPMS on activities of daily living at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.35 to 10.35; low-quality evidence) and at the end of follow-up (MD -2.00, 95% CI -14.86 to 10.86; low-quality evidence). Investigators in one study with 63 participants observed no statistical difference in improvement of upper limb function at the end of treatment (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.91 to 8.91) and at the end of follow-up (MD 4.00, 95% CI -2.92 to 10.92). One trial with 18 participants showed that rPMS treatment was not associated with improved muscle strength at the end of treatment (MD 3.00, 95% CI -2.44 to 8.44). Another study reported a significant decrease in spasticity of the elbow at the end of follow-up (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.03). No studies provided information on lower limb function and death. Based on the GRADE approach, we judged the certainty of evidence related to the primary outcome as low owing to the small sample size of one study. Available trials provided inadequate evidence to permit any conclusions about routine use of rPMS for people after stroke. Additional trials with large sample sizes are needed to determine an appropriate rPMS protocol as well as long-term effects. We identified three ongoing trials and will include these trials in the next review update.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 17%
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 51 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 16%
Neuroscience 10 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 55 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,782,115
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,980
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,865
of 329,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#164
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 329,567 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 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.