↓ Skip to main content

Physiological Ischemic Training Promotes Brain Collateral Formation and Improves Functions in Patients with Acute Cerebral Infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Physiological Ischemic Training Promotes Brain Collateral Formation and Improves Functions in Patients with Acute Cerebral Infarction
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoyue Zhen, Yu Zheng, Xunning Hong, Yan Chen, Ping Gu, Jinrong Tang, Hong Cheng, Ti-Fei Yuan, Xiao Lu

Abstract

To observe the effectiveness and mechanisms of physiological ischemic training (PIT) on brain cerebral collateral formation and functional recovery in patients with acute cerebral infarction. 20 eligible patients with acute cerebral infarction were randomly assigned to either PIT group (n = 10) or Control group (n = 10). Both groups received 4 weeks of routine rehabilitation therapy, while an additional session of PIT, which consisted of 10 times of maximal voluntary isometric handgrip for 1 min followed by 1 min rest, was prescribed for patients in the PIT groups. Each patient was trained with four sections a day and 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), the Modified Barthel Index (MBI), and the short-form 36-item health survey questionnaire (SF-36) were applied for the evaluation of motor impairment, activity of daily living, and quality of life at the baseline and endpoint. MRI was applied to detect the collateral formation in the brain. The concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) number in plasma were also tested at the endpoint. Demographic data were consistent between experimental groups. At the endpoint, the scores of the FMA, MBI, and SF-36 were significantly higher than that at baseline. As compared to the Control group, the score of FMA and SF-36 in PIT group was significantly higher, while no significant difference was detected between groups in terms of MBI. Both groups had significantly higher cerebral blood flow (CBF) level at endpoint as compared to that at baseline. Moreover, the CBF level was even higher in the PIT group as compared to that in the Control group after 4 weeks of training. The same situations were also found in the plasma VEGF and EPCs assessment. In addition, positive correlations were found between FMA score and CBF level (r = 0.686, p < 0.01), CBF level and VEGF concentration (r = 0.675, p < 0.01), and VEGF concentration and EPC number (r = 0.722, p < 0.01). PIT may be effective in increasing the expression of VEGF and recruitment of EPCs and in turn promote the formation of brain collateral circulation. The positive correlations may demonstrate a potential association between biological and functional parameters, and PIT may be able to improve the motor function, activity of daily living, and quality of life in patients with stroke.

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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer 22 21%
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 24 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 38 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 16%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 29 28%
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 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,837,681
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,107
of 11,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,090
of 420,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#43
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,832 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 420,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.