The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Title |
Home‐based therapy programmes for upper limb functional recovery following stroke
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2012
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006755.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Fiona Coupar, Alex Pollock, Lynn A Legg, Catherine Sackley, Paulette van Vliet |
Abstract |
With an increased focus on home-based stroke services and the undertaking of programmes, targeted at upper limb recovery within clinical practice, a systematic review of home-based therapy programmes for individuals with upper limb impairment following stroke was required. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
Canada | 1 | 17% |
United States | 1 | 17% |
Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
Canada | 2 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 293 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 52 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 15% |
Researcher | 37 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
Other | 16 | 5% |
Other | 40 | 13% |
Unknown | 74 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 19% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 16% |
Engineering | 22 | 7% |
Neuroscience | 19 | 6% |
Psychology | 19 | 6% |
Other | 51 | 17% |
Unknown | 85 | 28% |
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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,256,128
of 26,370,291 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,341
of 13,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,747
of 178,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,370,291 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 178,357 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.