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 |
The effects of graded motor imagery and its components on phantom limb pain and disability in upper and lower limb amputees: a systematic review protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0322-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katleho Limakatso, Lieselotte Corten, Romy Parker |
| Abstract |
Phantom limb pain (PLP) is characterized by the anatomical shifting of neighbouring somatosensory and motor areas into a deafferented cortical area of the brain contralateral to the amputated limb. It has been shown that maladaptive neuroplasticity is positively correlated to the perception of PLP in amputees. Recent studies support the use of graded motor imagery (GMI) and its component to alleviate the severity of PLP and disability. However, there is insufficient collective empirical evidence exploring the effectiveness of these treatment modalities in amputees with PLP. This systematic review will therefore explore the effects of GMI and its individual components on PLP and disability in upper and lower limb amputees. We will utilize a customized search strategy to search PubMed, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, Africa-Wide Information and Web of Science. We will also look at clinicaltrials.gov ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ ), Pactr.gov ( http://www.pactr.org/ ) and EU Clinical trials register ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ ) for ongoing research. Two independent reviewers will screen articles for methodological validity. Thereafter, data from included studies will be extracted by two independent reviewers through a customized pre-set data extraction sheet. Studies with a comparable intervention and outcome measure will be pooled for meta-analysis. Studies with high heterogeneity will be analysed through random effects model. A narrative data analysis will be considered where there is insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis. Several studies investigating the effectiveness of GMI and its different components on PLP have drawn contrasting conclusions regarding the efficacy and applicability of GMI in clinical practice. This systematic review will therefore gather and critically appraise all relevant data, to generate a substantial conclusion and recommendations for clinical practice and research on this subject. PROSPERO CRD42016036471. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 223 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 13% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 18% |
| Unknown | 69 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 53 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 20% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 21 | 9% |
| Unknown | 82 | 37% |
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 09 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,270,031
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,504
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,679
of 337,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 337,395 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.