↓ Skip to main content

Is upper limb virtual reality training more intensive than conventional training for patients in the subacute phase after stroke? An analysis of treatment intensity and content

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
374 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
Is upper limb virtual reality training more intensive than conventional training for patients in the subacute phase after stroke? An analysis of treatment intensity and content
Published in
BMC Neurology, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12883-016-0740-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iris Brunner, Jan Sture Skouen, Håkon Hofstad, Jörg Aßmuss, Frank Becker, Hanne Pallesen, Liselot Thijs, Geert Verheyden

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) training is thought to improve upper limb (UL) motor function after stroke when utilizing intensive training with many repetitions. The purpose of this study was to compare intensity and content of a VR training intervention to a conventional task-oriented intervention (CT). A random sample of 50 video recordings was analyzed of patients with a broad range of UL motor impairments (mean age 61y, 22 women). Patients took part in the VIRTUES trial and were randomized to either VR or CT and stratified according to severity of paresis. A standardized scoring form was used to analyze intensity, i.e. active use of the affected UL expressed in % of total time, total active time and total duration of a training session in minutes, content of training and feedback. Two raters collected data independently. Linear regression models as well as descriptive and graphical methods were used. Patients in the VR group spent significantly more time actively practicing with an activity rate of 77.6 (8.9) % than patients in the CT 67.3 (13.9) %, (p = .003). This difference was attributed to the subgroup of patients with initially severe paresis (n = 22). While in VR severely impaired patients spent 80.7 % (4.4 %) of the session time actively; they reached 60.6 (12.1) % in CT. VR and CT also differed in terms of tasks and feedback provided. Our results indicate that patients with severely impaired UL motor function spent more time actively in VR training, which may influence recovery. The upcoming results of the VIRTUES trial will show whether this is correlated with an increased effect of VR compared to CT. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02079103 , February 27, 2014.

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 374 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 372 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 18%
Student > Bachelor 62 17%
Researcher 35 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 52 14%
Unknown 111 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 90 24%
Neuroscience 43 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 11%
Engineering 19 5%
Computer Science 15 4%
Other 47 13%
Unknown 120 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 November 2016.
All research outputs
#13,487,741
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,071
of 2,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,131
of 310,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#21
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. 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 310,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.