| Title |
Review of devices used in neuromuscular electrical stimulation for stroke rehabilitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s123464 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kotaro Takeda, Genichi Tanino, Hiroyuki Miyasaka |
| Abstract |
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), specifically functional electrical stimulation (FES) that compensates for voluntary motion, and therapeutic electrical stimulation (TES) aimed at muscle strengthening and recovery from paralysis are widely used in stroke rehabilitation. The electrical stimulation of muscle contraction should be synchronized with intended motion to restore paralysis. Therefore, NMES devices, which monitor electromyogram (EMG) or electroencephalogram (EEG) changes with motor intention and use them as a trigger, have been developed. Devices that modify the current intensity of NMES, based on EMG or EEG, have also been proposed. Given the diversity in devices and stimulation methods of NMES, the aim of the current review was to introduce some commercial FES and TES devices and application methods, which depend on the condition of the patient with stroke, including the degree of paralysis. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 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 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 310 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
| Researcher | 31 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 11% |
| Unknown | 100 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 70 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 29 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 7% |
| Unknown | 117 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,157,290
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#30
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,378
of 327,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 327,733 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.