↓ Skip to main content

Accelerometer measurement of upper extremity movement after stroke: a systematic review of clinical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
255 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
Accelerometer measurement of upper extremity movement after stroke: a systematic review of clinical studies
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-11-144
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marika Noorkõiv, Helen Rodgers, Christopher I Price

Abstract

The aim of this review was to identify and summarise publications, which have reported clinical applications of upper limb accelerometry for stroke within free-living environments and make recommendations for future studies. Data was searched from MEDLINE®, Scopus, IEEExplore and Compendex databases. The final search was 31st October 2013. Any study was included which reported clinical assessments in parallel with accelerometry in a free-living hospital or home setting. Study quality is reflected by participant numbers, methodological approach, technical details of the equipment used, blinding of clinical measures, whether safety and compliance data was collected. First author screened articles for inclusion and inclusion of full text articles and data extraction was confirmed by the third author. Out of 1375 initial abstracts, 8 articles were included. All participants were stroke patients. Accelerometers were worn for either 24 hours or 3 days. Data were collected as summed acceleration counts over a specified time or as the duration of active/inactive periods. Activity in both arms was reported by all studies and the ratio of impaired to unimpaired arm activity was calculated in six studies. The correlation between clinical assessments and accelerometry was tested in five studies and significant correlations were found. The efficacy of a rehabilitation intervention was assessed using accelerometry by three studies: in two studies both accelerometry and clinical test scores detected a post-treatment difference but in one study accelerometry data did not change despite clinical test scores showing motor and functional improvements. Further research is needed to understand the additional value of accelerometry as a measure of upper limb use and function in a clinical context. A simple and easily interpretable accelerometry approach is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 255 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 251 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 19%
Student > Master 35 14%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 48 19%
Unknown 47 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 46 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 15%
Neuroscience 36 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 13%
Computer Science 12 5%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 60 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#935
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,615
of 267,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 267,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.