↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Occupational therapy for multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
Title
Occupational therapy for multiple sclerosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003608
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther EMJ Steultjens, Joost J Dekker, Lex M Bouter, Mieke M Cardol, Els CHM Van den Ende, Jos van de Nes

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients are referred to occupational therapy with complaints about fatigue, limb weakness, alteration of upper extremity fine motor coordination, loss of sensation and spasticity that causes limitations in performance of activities of daily living and social participation. The primary purpose of occupational therapy is to enable individuals to participate in self-care, work and leisure activities that they want or need to perform. To determine whether occupational therapy interventions in MS patients improve outcome on functional ability, social participation and/or health related quality of life. Relevant full length articles were identified by electronical searches in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Amed, Scisearch and The Cochrane MS Group Trials Register. The reference list of identified studies and reviews were examined for additional references. Date of last search: December 2002. Controlled (randomized and non-randomized) and other than controlled studies addressing occupational therapy for MS patients were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included trials was independently assessed by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A list proposed by Van Tulder et al. (Van Tulder 1997) was used to assess the methodological quality. For outcome measures, standardized mean differences were calculated. The results were analysed using a best-evidence synthesis based on type of design, methodological quality and the significant findings of outcome and/or process measures. Only one randomized clinical trial was identified. Two other included studies were a controlled clinical trial and a study with a pre-post test design. The studies included 271 patients in total. Two studies evaluated an energy-conservation course for groups of patients and one study evaluated a counselling intervention. The results of the energy conservation studies could be biased because of the designs used, the poor methodological quality and the small number of included patients. The high quality RCT on counselling reported non-significant results. On basis of this review no conclusions can be stated whether occupational therapy improves outcome in MS patients. The lack of (randomized controlled) efficacy studies in most intervention categories of OT shows an urgent need for future research in occupational therapy for multiple sclerosis. Initially, a survey of occupational therapy practice for MS patients including the characteristics and needs of these patients is necessary to develop a research agenda for efficacy studies.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 224 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 21%
Student > Master 36 16%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 7%
Student > Postgraduate 16 7%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 44 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 19%
Social Sciences 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Psychology 10 4%
Other 39 17%
Unknown 46 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,488,881
of 17,365,229 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,213
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,383
of 296,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#149
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,365,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 296,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.