↓ Skip to main content

Physiological responses and energy cost of walking on the Gait Trainer with and without body weight support in subacute stroke patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
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

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.
Mendeley readers

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

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.