↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a randomized comparison of integrated versus consecutive dual task practice in Parkinson’s disease: the DUALITY trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, March 2014
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
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 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
Protocol for a randomized comparison of integrated versus consecutive dual task practice in Parkinson’s disease: the DUALITY trial
Published in
BMC Neurology, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-14-61
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolien Strouwen, Esther ALM Molenaar, Samyra HJ Keus, Liesbeth Münks, Marten Munneke, Wim Vandenberghe, Bastiaan R Bloem, Alice Nieuwboer

Abstract

Multiple tasking is an integral part of daily mobility. Patients with Parkinson's disease have dual tasking difficulties due to their combined motor and cognitive deficits. Two contrasting physiotherapy interventions have been proposed to alleviate dual tasking difficulties: either to discourage simultaneous execution of dual tasks (consecutive training); or to practice their concurrent use (integrated training). It is currently unclear which of these training methods should be adopted to achieve safe and consolidated dual task performance in daily life. Therefore, the proposed randomized controlled trial will compare the effects of integrated versus consecutive training of dual tasking (tested by combining walking with cognitive exercises).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 262 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 17%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Other 18 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 42 16%
Unknown 83 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 13%
Neuroscience 21 8%
Sports and Recreations 18 7%
Psychology 14 5%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 90 34%
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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,193,746
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,220
of 2,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,522
of 224,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#33
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 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 2,427 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 224,543 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.