↓ Skip to main content

The reliability of repeated TMS measures in older adults and in patients with subacute and chronic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
164 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
The reliability of repeated TMS measures in older adults and in patients with subacute and chronic stroke
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00335
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heidi M. Schambra, R. Todd Ogden, Isis E. Martínez-Hernández, Xuejing Lin, Y. Brenda Chang, Asif Rahman, Dylan J. Edwards, John W. Krakauer

Abstract

The reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) measures in healthy older adults and stroke patients has been insufficiently characterized. We determined whether common TMS measures could reliably evaluate change in individuals and in groups using the smallest detectable change (SDC), or could tell subjects apart using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We used a single-rater test-retest design in older healthy, subacute stroke, and chronic stroke subjects. At twice daily sessions on two consecutive days, we recorded resting motor threshold, test stimulus intensity, recruitment curves, short-interval intracortical inhibition, and facilitation, and long-interval intracortical inhibition. Using variances estimated from a random effects model, we calculated the SDC and ICC for each TMS measure. For all TMS measures in all groups, SDCs for single subjects were large; only with modest group sizes did the SDCs become low. Thus, while these TMS measures cannot be reliably used as a biomarker to detect individual change, they can reliably detect change exceeding measurement noise in moderate-sized groups. For several of the TMS measures, ICCs were universally high, suggesting that they can reliably discriminate between subjects. TMS measures should be used based on their reliability in particular contexts. More work establishing their validity, responsiveness, and clinical relevance is still needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 21%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 42 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 38 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Psychology 7 4%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 60 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,045,234
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#1,576
of 4,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,214
of 267,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#42
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 267,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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 70% of its contemporaries.