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 |
Questioning the dichotomy between vegetative state and minimally conscious state: a review of the statistical evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00865 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giulia Liberati, Thomas Hünefeldt, Marta Olivetti Belardinelli |
| Abstract |
Given the enormous consequences that the diagnosis of vegetative state (VS) vs. minimally conscious state (MCS) may have for the treatment of patients with disorders of consciousness, it is particularly important to empirically legitimate the distinction between these two discrete levels of consciousness. Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to review all the articles reporting statistical evidence concerning the performance of patients in VS vs. patients in MCS, on behavioral or neurophysiological measures. Twenty-three articles matched these inclusion criteria, and comprised behavioral, electroencephalographic (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures. The analysis of these articles yielded 47 different statistical findings. More than half of these findings (n = 24) did not reveal any statistically significant difference between VS and MCS. Overall, there was no combination of variables that allowed reliably discriminating between VS and MCS. This pattern of results casts doubt on the empirical validity of the distinction between VS and MCS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 17 | 23% |
| Psychology | 13 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
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 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,160,469
of 23,548,905 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,552
of 7,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,642
of 263,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#135
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,548,905 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 7,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 263,865 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.