↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Robot-assisted gait training for stroke patients: current state of the art and perspectives of robotics

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 Mendeley
Title
Robot-assisted gait training for stroke patients: current state of the art and perspectives of robotics
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s114102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanni Morone, Stefano Paolucci, Andrea Cherubini, Domenico De Angelis, Vincenzo Venturiero, Paola Coiro, Marco Iosa

Abstract

In this review, we give a brief outline of robot-mediated gait training for stroke patients, as an important emerging field in rehabilitation. Technological innovations are allowing rehabilitation to move toward more integrated processes, with improved efficiency and less long-term impairments. In particular, robot-mediated neurorehabilitation is a rapidly advancing field, which uses robotic systems to define new methods for treating neurological injuries, especially stroke. The use of robots in gait training can enhance rehabilitation, but it needs to be used according to well-defined neuroscientific principles. The field of robot-mediated neurorehabilitation brings challenges to both bioengineering and clinical practice. This article reviews the state of the art (including commercially available systems) and perspectives of robotics in poststroke rehabilitation for walking recovery. A critical revision, including the problems at stake regarding robotic clinical use, is also presented.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Master 32 16%
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 35 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 58 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 11%
Neuroscience 20 10%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 46 23%

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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,288,555
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#671
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,564
of 266,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#17
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 266,401 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.