↓ Skip to main content

The orthotic and therapeutic effects following daily community applied functional electrical stimulation in children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 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
The orthotic and therapeutic effects following daily community applied functional electrical stimulation in children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12887-015-0472-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dayna Pool, Jane Valentine, Natasha Bear, Cyril J. Donnelly, Catherine Elliott, Katherine Stannage

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the orthotic and therapeutic effects of daily community applied FES to the ankle dorsiflexors in a randomized controlled trial. We hypothesized that children receiving the eight-week FES treatment would demonstrate orthotic and therapeutic effects in gait and spasticity as well as better community mobility and balance skills compared to controls not receiving FES. This randomized controlled trial involved 32 children (mean age 10 yrs 3 mo, SD 3 yrs 3 mo; 15 females, 17 males) with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy and a Gross Motor Function Classification System of I or II randomly assigned to a FES treatment group (n = 16) or control group (n = 16). The treatment group received eight weeks of daily FES (four hours per day, six days per week) and the control group received usual orthotic and therapy treatment. Children were assessed at baseline, post FES treatment (eight weeks) and follow-up (six weeks after post FES treatment). Outcome measures included lower limb gait mechanics, clinical measures of gastrocnemius spasticity and community mobility balance skills. Participants used the FES for a mean daily use of 6.2 (SD 3.2) hours over the eight-week intervention period. With FES, the treatment group demonstrated a significant (p < 0.05) increase in initial contact ankle angle (mean difference 11.9° 95 % CI 6.8° to 17.1°), maximum dorsiflexion ankle angle in swing (mean difference 8.1° 95 % CI 1.8° to 14.4°) normalized time in stance (mean difference 0.27 95 % CI 0.05 to 0.49) and normalized step length (mean difference 0.06 95 % CI 0.003 to 0.126) post treatment compared to the control group. Without FES, the treatment group significantly increased community mobility balance scores at post treatment (mean difference 8.3 units 95 % CI 3.2 to 13.4 units) and at follow-up (mean difference 8.9 units 95 % CI 3.8 to13.9 units) compared to the control group. The treatment group also had significantly reduced gastrocnemius spasticity at post treatment (p = 0.038) and at follow-up (dynamic range of motion mean difference 6.9°, 95 % CI 0.4° to 13.6°; p = 0.035) compared to the control group. This study documents an orthotic effect with improvement in lower limb mechanics during gait. Therapeutic effects i.e. without FES were observed in clinical measures of gastrocnemius spasticity, community mobility and balance skills in the treatment group at post treatment and follow-up. This study supports the use of FES applied during daily walking activities to improve gait mechanics as well as to address community mobility issues among children with unilateral spastic cerebral palsy. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12614000949684 . Registered 4 September 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 263 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 16%
Student > Master 33 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 9%
Student > Postgraduate 23 9%
Researcher 18 7%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 80 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 67 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 17%
Neuroscience 17 6%
Engineering 15 6%
Sports and Recreations 14 5%
Other 19 7%
Unknown 89 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,841,601
of 23,341,064 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#865
of 3,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,024
of 280,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#16
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,341,064 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 280,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.