↓ Skip to main content

General Movements in preterm infants undergoing craniosacral therapy: a randomised controlled pilot-trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
11 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 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
General Movements in preterm infants undergoing craniosacral therapy: a randomised controlled pilot-trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-0984-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolfgang Raith, Peter B. Marschik, Constanze Sommer, Ute Maurer-Fellbaum, Claudia Amhofer, Alexander Avian, Elisabeth Löwenstein, Susanne Soral, Wilhelm Müller, Christa Einspieler, Berndt Urlesberger

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate neurological short-term effects of craniosacral therapy as an ideal form of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) due to the soft kinaesthetic stimulation. Included were 30 preterm infants, with a gestational age between 25 and 33 weeks, who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit of the University Hospital of Graz, Austria. The infants were randomized either into the intervention group (IG) which received standardised craniosacral therapy, or the control group (CG) which received standard care. To guarantee that only preterm infants with subsequent normal neurodevelopment were included, follow up was done regularly at the corrected age (= actual age in weeks minus weeks premature) of 12 and 24 months. After 2 years 5 infants had to be excluded (IG; n = 12; CG: n = 13). General Movements (GMs) are part of the spontaneous movement repertoire and are present from early fetal life onwards until the end of the first half year of life. To evaluate the immediate result of such an intervention, we selected the General Movement Assessment (GMA) as an appropriate tool. Besides the global GMA (primary outcome) we used as detailed GMA, the General Movement Optimality Score (GMOS- secondary outcome), based on Prechtl's optimality concept. To analyse GMOS (secondary outcome) a linear mixed model with fixed effects for session, time point (time point refers to the comparisons of the measurements before vs. after each session) and intervention (IG vs. CG), random effect for individual children and a first order autoregressive covariance structure was used for calculation of significant differences between groups and interactions. Following interaction terms were included in the model: session*time point, session*intervention, time point*intervention and session*time point*intervention. Exploratory post hoc analyses (interaction: session*time point*intervention) were performed to determine group differences for all twelve measurement (before and after all 6 sessions) separately. Between groups no difference in the global GMA (primary outcome) could be observed. The GMOS (secondary outcome) did not change from session to session (main effect session: p = 0.262) in the IG or the CG. Furthermore no differences between IG and CG (main effect group: p = 0.361) and no interaction of time*session could be observed (p = 0.658). Post hoc analysis showed a trend toward higher values before (p = 0.085) and after (p = 0.075) the first session in CG compared to IG. At all other time points GMOS were not significantly different between groups. We were able to indicate that a group of "healthy" preterm infants undergoing an intervention with craniosacral therapy (IG) showed no significant changes in GMs compared to preterm infants without intervention (CG). In view of the fact that the global GMA (primary outcome) showed no difference between groups and the GMOS (detailed GMA-secondary outcome) did not deteriorate in the IG, craniosacral therapy seems to be safe in preterm infants. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004258 .

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Student > Master 24 10%
Researcher 21 9%
Other 16 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 49 21%
Unknown 83 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 21%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 90 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,342,423
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#422
of 3,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,038
of 395,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#12
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 395,522 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.