↓ Skip to main content

Mobile tablet-based therapies following stroke: a systematic scoping review protocol of attempted interventions and the challenges encountered

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Mobile tablet-based therapies following stroke: a systematic scoping review protocol of attempted interventions and the challenges encountered
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0620-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Pugliese, Dylan Johnson, Dar Dowlatshahi, Tim Ramsay

Abstract

Stroke is a growing global epidemic limiting the ability of millions to function independently due to post-stroke deficits and complications. Although specialized stroke rehabilitation improves the recovery of functional abilities, accessing rehabilitation services has become increasingly challenging as the number of stroke survivors continues to increase and rehabilitation resources remain scarce. Mobile tablet-based therapies (MTBTs) may be a resource-efficient platform for providing stroke rehabilitation services. The feasibility and challenges of offering MTBTs to stroke survivors should be well understood before expensive, large-scale clinical trials are undertaken to study treatment efficacy. A systematic scoping review will be conducted to describe attempted MTBTs following stroke and the challenges encountered by survivors and study staff. Studies of interest will evaluate MTBTs offered to adult stroke patients in response to post-stroke complications or deficits. Journal databases, gray literature sources, clinical trial registries, relevant organizational websites, and reference lists of eligible studies will be searched to identify suitable studies. Study characteristics, barriers to care, methodological challenges, patient-reported outcomes, and health outcomes will be extracted to describe MTBTs and understand the challenges encountered in context. Results will be presented using descriptive statistics, tables, figures, and narrative description to summarize the scope of the field. Trends in MTBT feasibility and common challenges will be discussed to summarize major findings and highlight research gaps. Solutions to common challenges experienced by intervention participants and study staff will be proposed. Implications for the conduct of randomized clinical trials of MTBT efficacy and the appropriateness of a systematic review and meta-analysis of completed trials will be discussed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: uO Research ( http://hdl.handle.net/10393/35696 ).

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 17%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Psychology 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 28%

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 05 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,026,574
of 20,927,597 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,474
of 1,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,336
of 339,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#134
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,927,597 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 339,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 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.