↓ Skip to main content

Kinematic Components of the Reach-to-Target Movement After Stroke for Focused Rehabilitation Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 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
Kinematic Components of the Reach-to-Target Movement After Stroke for Focused Rehabilitation Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00472
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn C. Collins, Niamh C. Kennedy, Allan Clark, Valerie M. Pomeroy

Abstract

Background: Better upper limb recovery after stroke could be achieved through tailoring rehabilitation interventions directly at movement deficits. Aim: To identify potential; targets for therapy by synthesizing findings of differences in kinematics and muscle activity between stroke survivors and healthy adults performing reach-to-target tasks. Methods: A systematic review with identification of studies, data extraction, and potential risk of bias was completed independently by two reviewers. Online databases were searched from their inception to November 2017 to find studies of reach-to-target in people-with-stroke and healthy adults. Potential risk-of-bias was assessed using the Down's and Black Tool. Synthesis was undertaken via: (a) meta-analysis of kinematic characteristics utilizing the standardized mean difference (SMD) [95% confidence intervals]; and (b), narrative synthesis of muscle activation. Results: Forty-six studies met the review criteria but 14 had insufficient data for extraction. Consequently, 32 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Potential risk-of-bias was low for one study, unclear for 30, and high for one. Reach-to-target was investigated with 618 people-with-stroke and 429 healthy adults. The meta-analysis found, in all areas of workspace, that people-with-stroke had: greater movement times (seconds) e.g., SMD 2.57 [0.89, 4.25]; lower peak velocity (millimeters/second) e.g., SMD -1.76 [-2.29, -1.24]; greater trunk displacement (millimeters) e.g. SMD 1.42 [0.90, 1.93]; a more curved reach-path-ratio e.g., SMD 0.77 [0.32, 1.22] and reduced movement smoothness e.g., SMD 0.92 [0.32, 1.52]. In the ipsilateral and contralateral workspace, people-with-stroke exhibited: larger errors in target accuracy e.g., SMD 0.70 [0.39, 1.01]. In contralateral workspace, stroke survivors had: reduced elbow extension and shoulder flexion (degrees) e.g., elbow extension SMD -1.10 [-1.62, -0.58] and reduced shoulder flexion SMD -1.91 [-1.96, -0.42]. Narrative synthesis of muscle activation found that people-with-stroke, compared with healthy adults, exhibited: delayed muscle activation; reduced coherence between muscle pairs; and use of a greater percentage of muscle power. Conclusions: This first-ever meta-analysis of the kinematic differences between people with stroke and healthy adults performing reach-to-target found statistically significant differences for 21 of the 26 comparisons. The differences identified and values provided are potential foci for tailored rehabilitation interventions to improve upper limb recovery after stroke.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 8 6%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 41 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 20%
Neuroscience 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 9%
Engineering 11 8%
Psychology 7 5%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 48 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,022,780
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,351
of 12,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,687
of 328,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#58
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 328,981 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.