↓ Skip to main content

Motor training programs of arm and hand in patients with MS according to different levels of the ICF: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 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
Motor training programs of arm and hand in patients with MS according to different levels of the ICF: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Neurology, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-12-49
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annemie IF Spooren, Annick AA Timmermans, Henk AM Seelen

Abstract

The upper extremity plays an important role in daily functioning of patients with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and strongly influences their quality of life. However, an explicit overview of arm-hand training programs is lacking. The present review aims to investigate the training components and the outcome of motor training programs for arm and hand in MS. A computerized systematic literature search in 5 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and Cochrane) was performed using the following Mesh terms: Multiple Sclerosis, Rehabilitation, Physical Education and Training, Exercise, Patient-Centered Care, Upper Extremity, Activities of Daily Living, Motor Skills, Motor Activity, Intervention Studies and Clinical Trial. The methodological quality of the selected articles was scored with the Van Tulder Checklist. A descriptive analyses was performed using the PICO principle, including scoring of training components with the calculation of Hedges'g effect sizes. Eleven studies were eligible (mean Van Tulder-score = 10.82(SD2.96)). Most studies reported a specific improvement in arm hand performance at the ICF level that was trained at. The mean number of training components was 5.5(SD2.8) and a significant correlation (r = 0.67; p < 0.05) between the number of training components and effect sizes was found. The components 'client-centered' and 'functional movement' were most frequently used, whereas 'distribution based practice', 'feedback' and 'random practice' were never used. The component 'exercise progression' was only used in studies with single ICF body function training, with the exception of 1 study with activity level training. Studies including the component 'client-centred' demonstrated moderate to high effect sizes. Motor training programs (both at the ICF body function and activity level) have shown to improve arm and hand performance in MS in which the value of the training specificity was emphasized. To optimize upper extremity training in MS the component 'client-centred' and 'exercise progression' may be important. Furthermore, given the importance attributed to the components 'distribution based practice', 'feedback' and 'random practice' in previous research in stroke patients, the use of these components in arm hand training should be explored in future research.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 223 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Researcher 21 9%
Other 10 4%
Other 46 20%
Unknown 53 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 17%
Neuroscience 16 7%
Sports and Recreations 11 5%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 58 26%
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 02 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,246,403
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,474
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,858
of 164,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#33
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 164,217 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 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.