↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Locomotor training for walking after spinal cord injury

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 Mendeley
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.

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 292 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 279 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 13%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 8%
Other 58 20%
Unknown 52 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 6%
Engineering 17 6%
Sports and Recreations 15 5%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 62 21%

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
#3,403,292
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,771
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,497
of 254,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#289
of 443 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 254,921 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 443 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.