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 |
Physiological responses and energy cost of walking on the Gait Trainer with and without body weight support in subacute stroke patients
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-11-54 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anna Sofia Delussu, Giovanni Morone, Marco Iosa, Maura Bragoni, Marco Traballesi, Stefano Paolucci |
Abstract |
Robotic-assisted walking after stroke provides intensive task-oriented training. But, despite the growing diffusion of robotic devices little information is available about cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses during electromechanically-assisted repetitive walking exercise. Aim of the study was to determine whether use of an end-effector gait training (GT) machine with body weight support (BWS) would affect physiological responses and energy cost of walking (ECW) in subacute post-stroke hemiplegic patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 118 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 25 | 21% |
Student > Bachelor | 20 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 10% |
Researcher | 9 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
Other | 18 | 15% |
Unknown | 30 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 17% |
Engineering | 16 | 13% |
Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
Sports and Recreations | 5 | 4% |
Other | 14 | 12% |
Unknown | 36 | 30% |
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 18 April 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#935
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,316
of 241,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#29
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 241,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.