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 |
Review of Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation for Augmenting Cough after Spinal Cord Injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00144 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan T. Hachmann, Jonathan S. Calvert, Peter J. Grahn, Dina I. Drubach, Kendall H. Lee, Igor A. Lavrov |
| Abstract |
Spinal cord injury (SCI) remains a debilitating condition for which there is no cure. In addition to loss of somatic sensorimotor functions, SCI is also commonly associated with impairment of autonomic function. Importantly, cough dysfunction due to paralysis of expiratory muscles in combination with respiratory insufficiency can render affected individuals vulnerable to respiratory morbidity. Failure to clear sputum can aggravate both risk for and severity of respiratory infections, accounting for frequent hospitalizations and even mortality. Recently, epidural stimulation of the lower thoracic spinal cord has been investigated as novel means for restoring cough by evoking expiratory muscle contraction to generate large positive airway pressures and expulsive air flow. This review article discusses available preclinical and clinical evidence, current challenges and clinical potential of lower thoracic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for restoring cough in individuals with SCI. |
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 | 2 | 40% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 14 | 20% |
| Engineering | 11 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
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 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,308,699
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,847
of 7,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,174
of 308,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#113
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 308,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.