↓ Skip to main content

Inpatient rehabilitation for adult patients with Marfan syndrome: an observational pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Inpatient rehabilitation for adult patients with Marfan syndrome: an observational pilot study
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-017-0679-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dieter Benninghoven, Denise Hamann, Yskert von Kodolitsch, Meike Rybczynski, Julia Lechinger, Friedrich Schroeder, Marina Vogler, Eike Hoberg

Abstract

Advances in medical, interventional and surgical treatment have increased average life expectancy of patients with congenital heart defects. As a result a new group of adult patients with congenital cardiac defects requires medical rehabilitation. Patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) are a relevant group among these patients. So far, no reports on the effectiveness of specialized rehabilitation programmes for MFS patients exist. We implemented an inpatient 3-week rehabilitation program for MFS patients at the Muehlenberg-Clinic for rehabilitation and assessed the medical safety as well as the impact of the program on physical fitness and psychological wellbeing of participants by means of an observational pilot study. The comprehensive multidisciplinary program included medical, physiotherapeutic, psychological and social issues. Two groups including 8 and 10 individuals with verified MFS attended the programme. Medically adverse events that occurred during the rehabilitation were registered. Adverse events were defined as: any new cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, cardiac syncope or any complications located at the aorta. Psychological assessment was performed using Short Form-36 (SF-36), hospital anxiety and depression scale and other psychometric questionnaires. Medical examinations included assessment of maximum power in bicycle ergometry. All assessments were performed at the beginning and at the end of the rehabilitation. Psychometric assessments were repeated 1 year after the end of the programme for both groups, respectively. Patients were highly satisfied with the programme and improved in almost all psychological and physical fitness assessments. The pre-post-comparison resulted in significant positive changes for mental health (p < .001 for SF-36 Mental Health), fatigue (p < .05 for Fatigue Severity Scale), nociception (p < .05 for SF-36 Pain) and vitality (p < .05 for SF-36 Vitality). Physical fitness improved from admission to discharge (p < .001 for maximum power in bicycle ergometry, p < .05 for maximum nordic walking distance). Considerable improvements persisted through 1 year follow-up. Medical assessments excluded medical problems or adverse events caused by participation in the programme. In our study, inpatient rehabilitation was both safe and helpful for MFS patients. They benefited in terms of physical fitness, health related quality of life and in terms of psychological wellbeing. An evaluation of the efficacy of the programme in a controlled design as well as further conceptual improvements of our current program is desirable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 9 6%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 53 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Psychology 14 10%
Sports and Recreations 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 60 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,219,799
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,054
of 2,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,661
of 312,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#19
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 312,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.