↓ Skip to main content

Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Conversion (Functional) Weakness and Paralysis: A Systematic Review and Future Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Conversion (Functional) Weakness and Paralysis: A Systematic Review and Future Perspectives
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Schönfeldt-Lecuona, Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur, Peter Lepping, Joachim Liepert, Bernhard J. Connemann, Alexander Sartorius, Dennis A. Nowak, Maximilian Gahr

Abstract

Conversion (functional) limb weakness or paralysis (FW) can be a debilitating condition, and often causes significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Most treatment concepts are multi-disciplinary, containing a behavioral approach combined with a motor learning program. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) methods, such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) have been used in the past few decades to treat FW. In order to identify all published studies that used NIBS methods such as ECT, TMS and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating FW patients a systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. In a second step, narratives were used to retrospectively determine nominal CGI-I (Clinical Global Impression scale-Improvement) scores to describe approximate changes of FW symptoms. We identified two articles (case reports) with ECT used for treatment of FW, five with TMS with a total of 86 patients, and none with tDCS. In 75 out of 86 patients treated with repetitive (r)TMS a nominal CGI-I score could be estimated, showing a satisfactory short-term improvement. Fifty-four out of seventy-five identified patients (72%) had a CGI-I score of 1 (very much improved), 13 (17%) a score of 2 (much improved), 5 (7%) a score of 3 (minimally improved), and 3 (5%) remained unchanged (CGI-I = 4). In no case did patients worsen after rTMS treatment, and no severe adverse effects were reported. At follow-up, symptom improvement was not quantifiable in terms of CGI-I for the majority of the cases. Patients treated with ECT showed a satisfactory short-term response (CGI-I = 2), but deterioration of FW symptoms at follow-up. Despite the predominantly positive results presented in the identified studies and satisfactory levels of efficacy measured with retrospectively calculated nominal CGI-I scores, any assumption of a beneficial effect of NIBS in FW has to be seen with caution, as only few articles could be retrieved and their quality was mostly poor. This article elucidates how NIBS might help in FW and gives recommendations for future study designs using NIBS in this condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 86 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 18%
Neuroscience 14 16%
Psychology 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 31 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 30 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,421,760
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#653
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,976
of 315,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#12
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 315,347 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.