↓ Skip to main content

Repetitive arm functional tasks after stroke (RAFTAS): a pilot randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Repetitive arm functional tasks after stroke (RAFTAS): a pilot randomised controlled trial
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0088-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lianne Brkic, Lisa Shaw, Frederike van Wijck, Richard Francis, Christopher Price, Anne Forster, Peter Langhorne, Caroline Watkins, Helen Rodgers

Abstract

Repetitive functional task practise (RFTP) is a promising treatment to improve upper limb recovery following stroke. We report the findings of a study to determine the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate this intervention. A pilot randomised controlled trial recruited patients with new reduced upper limb function within 14 days of acute stroke from three stroke units. Participants were randomised to receive a four week upper limb RFTP therapy programme consisting of goal setting, independent activity practise, and twice weekly therapy reviews in addition to usual post stroke rehabilitation, or usual post stroke rehabilitation. The recruitment rate; adherence to the RFTP therapy programme; usual post stroke rehabilitation received; attrition rate; data quality; success of outcome assessor blinding; adverse events; and the views of study participants and therapists about the intervention were recorded. Fifty five eligible patients were identified, 4-6 % of patients screened at each site. Twenty four patients participated in the pilot study. Two study sites met the recruitment target of 1-2 participants per month. The median number of face to face therapy sessions received was 6 [IQR 3-8]. The median number of daily repetitions of activities recorded was 80 [IQR 39-80]. Data about usual post stroke rehabilitation were available for 18/24 (75 %). Outcome data were available for 22/24 (92 %) at one month and 20/24 (83 %) at three months. Outcome assessors were unblinded to participant group allocation for 11/22 (50 %) at one month and 6/20 (30 %) at three months. Four adverse events were considered serious as they resulted in hospitalisation. None were related to study treatment. Feedback from patients and therapists about the RFTP programme was mainly positive. A multi-centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate an upper limb RFTP therapy programme provided early after stroke is feasible and acceptable to patients and therapists, but there are issues which need to be addressed when designing a Phase III study. A Phase III study will need to monitor and report not only recruitment and attrition but also adherence to the intervention, usual post stroke rehabilitation received, and outcome assessor blinding. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) 58527251.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 25%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Neuroscience 8 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,381,416
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#728
of 1,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,595
of 342,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 342,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.