You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of Rhythmic Auditory Cueing in Gait Rehabilitation for Multiple Sclerosis: A Mini Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2018.00386 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shashank Ghai, Ishan Ghai |
| Abstract |
Rhythmic auditory cueing has been shown to enhance gait performance in several movement disorders. The "entrainment effect" generated by the stimulations can enhance auditory motor coupling and instigate plasticity. However, a consensus as to its influence over gait training among patients with multiple sclerosis is still warranted. A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out to analyze the effects of rhythmic auditory cueing in studies gait performance in patients with multiple sclerosis. This systematic identification of published literature was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, from inception until Dec 2017, on online databases: Web of science, PEDro, EBSCO, MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and PROQUEST. Studies were critically appraised using PEDro scale. Of 602 records, five studies (PEDro score: 5.7 ± 1.3) involving 188 participants (144 females/40 males) met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed enhancements in spatiotemporal parameters of gait i.e., velocity (Hedge's g: 0.67), stride length (0.70), and cadence (1.0), and reduction in timed 25 feet walking test (-0.17). Underlying neurophysiological mechanisms, and clinical implications are discussed. This present review bridges the gaps in literature by suggesting application of rhythmic auditory cueing in conventional rehabilitation approaches to enhance gait performance in the multiple sclerosis community. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 9% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 23 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,133,935
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#342
of 12,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,678
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#6
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.