↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008929.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anneliese Synnot, Marisa Chau, Veronica Pitt, Denise O'Connor, Russell L Gruen, Jason Wasiak, Ornella Clavisi, Loyal Pattuwage, Kate Phillips

Abstract

Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI. To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI. In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life). We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data. We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 221 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 18%
Student > Master 36 16%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 53 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 20%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Unspecified 7 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 65 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#1,197,770
of 15,642,280 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,242
of 11,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,481
of 410,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,642,280 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,226 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 71% 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 410,199 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 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 58% of its contemporaries.