↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treatment for postpolio syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
Title
Treatment for postpolio syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007818.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fieke Sophia Koopman, Anita Beelen, Nils Erik Gilhus, Marianne de Visser, Frans Nollet

Abstract

Postpolio syndrome (PPS) may affect survivors of paralytic poliomyelitis and is characterised by a complex of neuromuscular symptoms leading to a decline in physical functioning. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatment and rehabilitation management in PPS is not yet established. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. To systematically review the evidence from randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials for the effect of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for PPS compared to placebo, usual care or no treatment.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 21 July 2014: Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus. We also checked reference lists of all relevant articles, searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database and trial registers and contacted investigators known to be involved in research in this area. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of any form of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment for people with PPS. The primary outcome was self perceived activity limitations and secondary outcomes were muscle strength, muscle endurance, fatigue, pain and adverse events. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We included 10 pharmacological (modafinil, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), pyridostigmine, lamotrigine, amantadine, prednisone) and three non-pharmacological (muscle strengthening, rehabilitation in a warm climate (that is temperature ± 25°C, dry and sunny) and a cold climate (that is temperature ± 0°C, rainy or snowy), static magnetic fields) studies with a total of 675 participants with PPS in this review. None of the included studies were completely free from any risk of bias, the most prevalent risk of bias being lack of blinding.There was moderate- and low-quality evidence that IVIg has no beneficial effect on activity limitations in the short term and long term, respectively, and inconsistency in the evidence for effectiveness on muscle strength. IVIg caused minor adverse events in a substantial proportion of the participants. Results of one trial provided very low-quality evidence that lamotrigine might be effective in reducing pain and fatigue, resulting in fewer activity limitations without generating adverse events. Data from two single trials suggested that muscle strengthening of thumb muscles (very low-quality evidence) and static magnetic fields (moderate-quality evidence) are safe and beneficial for improving muscle strength and pain, respectively, with unknown effects on activity limitations. Finally, there was evidence varying from very low quality to high quality that modafinil, pyridostigmine, amantadine, prednisone and rehabilitation in a warm or cold climate are not beneficial in PPS. Due to insufficient good-quality data and lack of randomised studies, it was impossible to draw definite conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions for PPS. Results indicated that IVIg, lamotrigine, muscle strengthening exercises and static magnetic fields may be beneficial but need further investigation to clarify whether any real and meaningful effect exists.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 290 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 19%
Researcher 40 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 13%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 56 19%
Unknown 47 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 15%
Psychology 14 5%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Sports and Recreations 9 3%
Other 45 15%
Unknown 68 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 March 2020.
All research outputs
#2,726,122
of 17,356,510 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,349
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,055
of 240,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,356,510 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 240,317 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.