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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Functional Movement Disorders: Cortical Modulation or a Behavioral Effect?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2017.00338 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Béatrice Garcin, Francine Mesrati, Cécile Hubsch, Thomas Mauras, Iulia Iliescu, Lionel Naccache, Marie Vidailhet, Emmanuel Roze, Bertrand Degos |
| Abstract |
Recent studies suggest that repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) improves functional movement disorders (FMDs), but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. The objective was to determine whether the beneficial action of TMS in patients with FMDs is due to cortical neuromodulation or rather to a cognitive-behavioral effect. Consecutive patients with FMDs underwent repeated low-frequency (0.25 Hz) magnetic stimulation over the cortex contralateral to the symptoms or over the spinal roots [root magnetic stimulation (RMS)] homolateral to the symptoms. The patients were randomized into two groups: group 1 received RMS on day 1 and TMS on day 2, while group 2 received the same treatments in reverse order. We blindly assessed the severity of movement disorders before and after each stimulation session. We studied 33 patients with FMDs (dystonia, tremor, myoclonus, Parkinsonism, or stereotypies). The median symptom duration was 2.9 years. The magnetic stimulation sessions led to a significant improvement (>50%) in 22 patients (66%). We found no difference between TMS and RMS. We suggest that the therapeutic benefit of TMS in patients with FMDs is due more to a cognitive-behavioral effect than to cortical neuromodulation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 93 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 23% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 17% |
| Psychology | 12 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 31 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 21 June 2022.
All research outputs
#6,259,595
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,147
of 11,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,766
of 314,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#58
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 314,428 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 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 71% of its contemporaries.