↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the effects of botulinum toxin A injections when used to improve ease of care and comfort in children with cerebral palsy whom are non-ambulant: a double blind randomized controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Evaluation of the effects of botulinum toxin A injections when used to improve ease of care and comfort in children with cerebral palsy whom are non-ambulant: a double blind randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2431-12-120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Thorley, Samantha Donaghey, Priya Edwards, Lisa Copeland, Megan Kentish, Kim McLennan, Jayne Lindsley, Laura Gascoigne-Pees, Leanne Sakzewski, Roslyn N Boyd

Abstract

Children with cerebral palsy (CP) whom are non-ambulant are at risk of reduced quality of life and poor health status. Severe spasticity leads to discomfort and pain. Carer burden for families is significant. This study aims to determine whether intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) combined with a regime of standard therapy has a positive effect on care and comfort for children with CP whom are non-ambulant (GMFCS IV/V), compared with standard therapy alone (cycle I), and whether repeated injections with the same regime of adjunctive therapy results in greater benefits compared with a single injecting episode (cycle II). The regime of therapy will include serial casting, splinting and/or provision of orthoses, as indicated, combined with four sessions of goal directed occupational therapy or physiotherapy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 154 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Other 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Other 32 20%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 21%
Sports and Recreations 8 5%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 34 21%

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 09 August 2012.
All research outputs
#7,762,800
of 12,373,815 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#985
of 1,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,056
of 123,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,815 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 123,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.