↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Lecturer 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 16 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 19%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 47%
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 05 March 2020.
All research outputs
#18,054,148
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from Neurological Research and Practice
#107
of 187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,025
of 361,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurological Research and Practice
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 361,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.