↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Effectiveness of automated locomotor training in patients with acute incomplete spinal cord injury: A randomized controlled multicenter trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
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
Effectiveness of automated locomotor training in patients with acute incomplete spinal cord injury: A randomized controlled multicenter trial
Published in
BMC Neurology, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-11-60
Pubmed ID
21619574
Authors

Markus Wirz, Carolien Bastiaenen, Rob de Bie, Volker Dietz

Abstract

A large proportion of patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) regain ambulatory function. However, during the first 3 months most of the patients are not able to walk unsupported. To enable ambulatory training at such an early stage the body weight is partially relieved and the leg movements are assisted by two therapists. A more recent approach is the application of robotic based assistance which allows for longer training duration. From motor learning science and studies including patients with stroke, it is known that training effects depend on the duration of the training. Longer trainings result in a better walking function. The aim of the present study is to evaluate if prolonged robot assisted walking training leads to a better walking outcome in patients with incomplete SCI and whether such training is feasible or has undesirable effects.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 17%
Student > Master 28 16%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 35 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 17%
Engineering 18 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 7%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 43 24%

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 31 March 2012.
All research outputs
#2,015,260
of 3,632,408 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#409
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,423
of 73,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,632,408 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 73,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.