↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
456 Mendeley
Title
Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009509.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fary Khan, Bhasker Amatya, Louisa Ng, Kate Drummond, Mary Galea

Abstract

Brain tumours can cause significant disability, which may be amenable to multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, the evidence base for this is unclear. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [2013, Issue 1, Art. No. CD009509] on 'Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment'. To assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in people after primary brain tumour treatment, especially the types of approaches that are effective (settings, intensity). For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library up to Issue 12 of 12, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to January week 2, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January week 2, 2015), PEDro (1985 to January week 2 2015), and LILACS (1982 to January week 2, 2015). We checked the bibliographies of papers we identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field to seek published and unpublished trials. Controlled clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised clinical trials) that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in primary brain tumour with either routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention, or studies that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in different settings or at different levels of intensity. Three review authors independently assessed study quality, extracted data, and performed a 'best evidence ' synthesis based on methodological quality. We did not identify any studies for inclusion in the previous version of this review. For this update, the literature search identified one low-quality controlled clinical trial involving 106 participants. The findings from this study suggest 'low-level' evidence to support high-intensity ambulatory (outpatient) multidisciplinary rehabilitation in reducing short- and long-term motor disability (continence, mobility and locomotion, cognition), when compared with standard outpatient care. We found improvement in some domains of disability (continence, communication) and psychosocial gains were maintained at six months follow-up. We found no evidence for improvement in overall participation (quality of life and societal relationship). No adverse events were reported as a result of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. We found no evidence for improvement in quality of life or cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation. It was also not possible to suggest best 'dose' of therapy. Since the last version of this review, one new study has been identified for inclusion. The best evidence to date comes from this CCT, which provides low quality evidence that higher intensity ambulatory (outpatient) multidisciplinary rehabilitation reduces short- and long-term disability in people with brain tumour compared with standard outpatient care. Our conclusions are tentative at best, given gaps in current research in this area. Although the strength of evidence has increased with the identification of a new controlled clinical trial in this updated review, further research is needed into appropriate and robust study designs; outcome measurement; caregiver needs; evaluation of optimal settings; type, intensity, duration of therapy; and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the brain tumour population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 452 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 16%
Student > Bachelor 60 13%
Researcher 51 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 10%
Student > Postgraduate 20 4%
Other 66 14%
Unknown 141 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 14%
Psychology 36 8%
Social Sciences 19 4%
Neuroscience 17 4%
Other 50 11%
Unknown 155 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#6,363,264
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,073
of 13,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,186
of 277,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 277,914 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 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.