The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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.
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 |
Inhibitory non-invasive brain stimulation to homologous language regions as an adjunct to speech and language therapy in post-stroke aphasia: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00236 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Begonya Otal, Manuel C. Olma, Agnes Flöel, Ian Wellwood |
| Abstract |
Chronic communication impairment is common after stroke, and conventional speech and language therapy (SLT) strategies have limited effectiveness in post-stroke aphasia. Neurorehabilitation with non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (NIBS)-particularly repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)-may enhance the effects of SLT in selected patients. Applying inhibitory NIBS to specific homologous language regions may induce neural reorganization and reduce interhemispheric competition. This mini review highlights randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials using low-frequency rTMS or cathodal tDCS over the non-lesioned non-language dominant hemisphere and performs an exploratory meta-analysis of those trials considered combinable. Using a random-effects model, a meta-analysis of nine eligible trials involving 215 participants showed a significant mean effect size of 0.51 (95% CI = 0.24-0.79) for the main outcome "accuracy of naming" in language assessment. No heterogeneity was observed (I (2) = 0%). More multicenter RCTs with larger populations and homogenous intervention protocols are required to confirm these and the longer-term effects. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 243 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 29 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 46 | 19% |
| Unknown | 73 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 39 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 16% |
| Psychology | 28 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 4% |
| Linguistics | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 11% |
| Unknown | 90 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,909
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,037
of 264,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#138
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 264,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.