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 |
Systematic Review of Parameters of Stimulation, Clinical Trial Design Characteristics, and Motor Outcomes in Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00088 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bamidele O. Adeyemo, Marcel Simis, Debora Duarte Macea, Felipe Fregni |
| Abstract |
Introduction/Objectives: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation are two powerful non-invasive neuromodulatory therapies that have the potential to alter and evaluate the integrity of the corticospinal tract. Moreover, recent evidence has shown that brain stimulation might be beneficial in stroke recovery. Therefore, investigating and investing in innovative therapies that may improve neurorehabilitative stroke recovery are next steps in research and development. Participants/Materials and Methods: This article presents an up-to-date systematic review of the treatment effects of rTMS and tDCS on motor function. A literary search was conducted, utilizing search terms "stroke" and "transcranial stimulation." Items were excluded if they failed to: (1) include stroke patients, (2) study motor outcomes, or (3) include rTMS/tDCS as treatments. Other exclusions included: (1) reviews, editorials, and letters, (2) animal or pediatric populations, (3) case reports or sample sizes ≤2 patients, and (4) primary outcomes of dysphagia, dysarthria, neglect, or swallowing. Results: Investigation of PubMed English Database prior to 01/01/2012 produced 695 applicable results. Studies were excluded based on the aforementioned criteria, resulting in 50 remaining studies. They included 1314 participants (1282 stroke patients and 32 healthy subjects) evaluated by motor function pre- and post-tDCS or rTMS. Heterogeneity among studies' motor assessments was high and could not be accounted for by individual comparison. Pooled effect sizes for the impact of post-treatment improvement revealed consistently demonstrable improvements after tDCS and rTMS therapeutic stimulation. Most studies provided limited follow-up for long-term effects. Conclusion: It is apparent from the available studies that non-invasive stimulation may enhance motor recovery and may lead to clinically meaningful functional improvements in the stroke population. Only mild to no adverse events have been reported. Though results have been positive results, the large heterogeneity across articles precludes firm conclusions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 377 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 364 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 75 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 57 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 66 | 18% |
| Unknown | 59 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 99 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 65 | 17% |
| Psychology | 28 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 15% |
| Unknown | 80 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 January 2014.
All research outputs
#13,876,020
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#4,263
of 9,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,753
of 244,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#48
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 244,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.