↓ Skip to main content

Verum versus sham tDCS in the treatment of stroke-induced apraxia: study protocol of the randomized controlled trial RAdiCS -“Rehabilitating (stroke-induced) Apraxia with direct Current Stimulation”

Overview of attention for article published in Neurological Research and Practice, March 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 100)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Verum versus sham tDCS in the treatment of stroke-induced apraxia: study protocol of the randomized controlled trial RAdiCS -“Rehabilitating (stroke-induced) Apraxia with direct Current Stimulation”
Published in
Neurological Research and Practice, March 2020
DOI 10.1186/s42466-020-0052-y
Authors

Nina N. Kleineberg, Monika K. Richter, Ingrid Becker, Peter H. Weiss, Gereon R. Fink

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Unspecified 3 11%
Other 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Neuroscience 4 15%
Unspecified 3 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 37%

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 05 March 2020.
All research outputs
#13,156,531
of 17,154,907 outputs
Outputs from Neurological Research and Practice
#36
of 100 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,294
of 266,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurological Research and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,154,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 100 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 266,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them