| Title |
Locomotor training for walking after spinal cord injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006676.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan Mehrholz, Joachim Kugler, Marcus Pohl |
| Abstract |
A traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a lesion of neural elements of the spinal cord that can result in any degree of sensory and motor deficit, autonomic or bowel dysfunction. Improvement of locomotor function is one of the primary goals for people with SCI. Locomotor training for walking is therefore used in rehabilitation after SCI and might help to improve a person's ability to walk. However, a systematic review of the evidence is required to assess the effects and acceptability of locomotor training after SCI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 312 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 61 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 13% |
| Researcher | 32 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 62 | 19% |
| Unknown | 72 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 103 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 11% |
| Engineering | 18 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 49 | 15% |
| Unknown | 85 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,729
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,215
of 192,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 192,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.