FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2003032303> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2003032303 endingPage "237" @default.
• W2003032303 startingPage "235" @default.
• W2003032303 abstract "HomeStrokeVol. 38, No. 2Recent Advances in Stroke Rehabilitation 2006 Free AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBRecent Advances in Stroke Rehabilitation 2006 Lalit Kalra and Rajiv Ratan Lalit KalraLalit Kalra From the Department of Stroke Medicine (L.K.), King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK; and the Weill Medical College of Cornell University (R.R.), Burke-Cornell Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY. Search for more papers by this author and Rajiv RatanRajiv Ratan From the Department of Stroke Medicine (L.K.), King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK; and the Weill Medical College of Cornell University (R.R.), Burke-Cornell Medical Research Institute, White Plains, NY. Search for more papers by this author Originally published4 Jan 2007https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000254944.91297.a3Stroke. 2007;38:235–237Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 4, 2007: Previous Version 1 Stroke rehabilitation has benefited from significant advances in the understanding of the natural history of recovery after stroke and the developments of techniques to modulate recovery processes over the last year. The confluence of literature from basic preclinical sciences and human neuroimaging studies has resulted in new insights into the mechanisms of neuronal recovery and cortical reorganization after ischemic injury. There have also been a number of studies that seek to evaluate the efficacy of interventions based on better understanding of recovery processes. The last year has also seen an explosion of meta-analyses on the effectiveness of different therapy techniques in stroke rehabilitation, which have provided valuable information on the validity of various approaches to rehabilitation, previously restricted by sample size considerations.Advances in the Mechanisms of RecoveryStroke rehabilitation is based on the concepts of neuroplasticity and reorganization of cerebral activity, the validity of which has been strongly supported in many functional MRI studies over the last decade.1 These studies have also shown the diversity and complexity of reorganization patterns, suggesting that the process of reorganization is dynamic and dependent on the nature of injury, substrates involved and the duration since the initial insult. More recently, hyperacute imaging studies have shown that early rapid recovery of function corresponds with successful reperfusion of the ischemic penumbra, suggesting that successful thrombolysis, optimization of collateral flow and even angiogenesis may be the first step for successful rehabilitation.2 Recent studies in acute recovery have also shown that the integrity of the corticospinal tract system is critical for motor recovery within the first 4 weeks of stroke, irrespective of involvement of the somatosensory system, providing a physiological explanation for the clinical observation of slower recovery in older people and those with underlying white matter disease. These studies also provide added incentive to identify therapies effective in protecting axons as well as cell bodies.3The concept shift away from strict localization of function to one anatomic site and toward multiple widely distributed pathways has been supported by previous studies showing that functional recovery correlates most closely with reorganization in ipsilateral peri-infarct and related contralateral cortical areas on functional MRI studies.1 Recent transcranial magnetic stimulation studies have shown that regression of perilesional inhibition and intracortical disinhibition of the motor cortex contralateral to the infarction play an important part in this reorganization.2 At the cellular level, ischemia appears to induce a unique microenvironment for surviving axons to sprout new connections and establish novel projection patterns in the first month after stroke.4 Poststroke neuronal regeneration may involve orchestrated waves of cellular and molecular events characterized by a reduction in growth-inhibitory molecules and activation of growth-promoting genes by neurons. In addition, there are waves of migration of immature neurons from their origin in the subventricular zone into peri-infarct cortex, partly mediated by the cytokine erythropoietin.5 These findings suggest that modulation of electrophysiological activity and/or manipulation of cellular and molecular events by novel therapies has the potential of improving recovery after stroke.Another important emerging concept is that of “mirror neurons” which discharge during the execution of various hand-directed actions and during the observation of the same actions performed by other individuals.6 The mirror neuron system was first identified in the ventral premotor cortex and the inferior parietal lobule in monkeys, but a similar mirror neuron system has now been identified in humans. Furthermore, this system also has been shown to extend to mouth- and foot-directed actions. Recent studies have shown that this system performs an important role in action understanding, imitation learning of novel complex actions, and internal rehearsal of actions. These studies support the use of motor imagery as a novel approach for the treatment of stroke patients with motor impairments. Because interventions through the mirror neuron system may offer an alternate access to motor networks independent of the affected primary motor cortex, motor imagery–based interventions may prove particularly beneficial in patients in whom active movement therapies cannot be undertaken.7 However, literature in this area remains limited and although studies in healthy volunteers show activation of the nonprimary but not of the primary motor structures during motor imagery, cortical activation patterns in stroke patients are not known.Novel Interventions in Stroke RehabilitationThe basis of all stroke rehabilitation is the assumption that patients will improve with spontaneous recovery, learning and practice. Recent studies show that reorganization in the brain can occur with both recovery and learning but improves significantly in both with practice.8 It is also clear that motor learning mechanisms are operative during spontaneous stroke recovery and interact with rehabilitative training. In addition, studies suggest that retention of motor learning is best accomplished with variable training schedules and, for optimal results, rehabilitation techniques need to be geared toward patients’ specific motor deficits.9 Several promising new rehabilitation approaches have been developed on theories of motor learning and include impairment-oriented training, constraint-induced movement therapy, electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation, robotic interactive therapy and virtual reality.Recent studies in animals have shown that direct epidural stimulation of the primary motor cortex surrounding a small infarct results in improvement in motor function.10 Studies in stroke patients using noninvasive transcranial magnetic stimulation and direct current stimulation have similarly shown improvements in motor function.11–13 Lefaucher has reviewed the first clinical results on the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in patients with poststroke motor deficit, visuospatial neglect, or aphasia.14 Functional recovery was obtained either when rTMS was applied at low frequency (around 1 Hz) over the unaffected hemisphere in order to restore inhibition or when rTMS is applied at high frequency (5 Hz or more) over the affected hemisphere in order to reactivate hypoactive regions. There was great variation regarding the number of rTMS sessions required for a sustained effect and the timing of rTMS application after stroke, but the conclusion was that acute or recent stroke might be a major indication of rTMS in the future.There have been a few small clinical studies exploring the concept of motor imagery in stroke rehabilitation, of which 4 are randomized controlled trials, 1 case-controlled study and 5 case reports.15 All studies were small and differed in patient characteristics, intervention protocol, and outcome measures. Most tasks involved mentally rehearsing movements of the arm, but intervention periods varied from 2 to 6 weeks and frequencies ranged from multiple sessions per day to 3 times a week. There was some evidence that mental practice as an additional therapy intervention had positive effects on recovery of arm function and may have promise for improving leg function after stroke. However, further studies are needed in this area, despite the known problems with contextual reliability, subject concordance and evaluation of outcomes.Meta-Analyses of Established Therapy InterventionsA major limitation in the translation of therapy research into clinical practice has been the validity and generalizability of the findings of intervention studies because of the small sample sizes, variability in subject selection and differences in interventions or outcome measures. The emphasis on evidence-based management has resulted in a broader secondary analysis of therapy studies to validate their translation into clinical practice.Early mobilization is seen as one of the key components of acute stroke care responsible for good outcomes.16 However, mobilization protocols remain poorly defined and vary both with geography and the nature of the unit on which patients are being managed. A recent review which combined data from observational studies and meta-analyses over the last 55 years was not able to find any positive, unequivocal benefit associated with early mobilization, independent of other aspects of stroke care.17 The only conclusion possible was that early mobilization was not harmful for most stroke patients and may well be beneficial in some patients, but no controlled studies exist comparing early (eg, 1 to 3 days) versus late (eg, 1 to 2 weeks) mobilization. The review concluded that although data were insufficient to prove the beneficial effects of early mobilization after stroke, early neurological rehabilitation as part of routine stroke-unit care contributed to good long-term outcome.Restoration of motor function has been a key element of stroke rehabilitation, and the last year has seen several pooled data analyses of studies on various aspects of improving motor performance. A prospective meta-analysis to determine the overall effectiveness of bilateral movement training in poststroke motor rehabilitation showed that bilateral movements alone or in combination with auxiliary sensory feedback were effective in improving functional and mobility outcomes in stroke patients.18 The role of bilateral standing with visual feedback therapy to improve postural control for stroke patients, on the other hand, remains unproven because there were no significant benefits over conventional therapy for weight distribution and postural sway, balance and gait performance, and gait speed.19 There is evidence to support a role of peripheral neuromuscular electrostimulation in stroke rehabilitation because these techniques appear to improve aspects of functional motor ability, motor impairment and normality of movement compared with no treatment, placebo or conventional physical therapy.20 However, there was considerable heterogeneity between studies and insufficient robust data to recommend routine use of these techniques in mainstream clinical settings.Research into service organization and strategies of provision of specialist rehabilitation to stroke patients has been responsible for dramatic improvements in stroke outcome in recent years. Larsen et al compared the benefits of early supported discharge managed by a multidisciplinary team that plans, coordinates, and delivers care at home with rehabilitation on stroke units.21 Management by the early home discharge team resulted in a significant reduction in institutionalization and length of hospital stay but mortality was unchanged. However, implementation in clinical practice was fraught with problems—not unsurprising in view of the complex nature of stroke care—requiring input from professionals, patients and carers. Few complex interventions in stroke care have been adequately developed or evaluated, which may explain failures to implement trial findings into clinical practice.22DisclosuresNone.FootnotesCorrespondence to Lalit Kalra, Department of Stroke Medicine, King’s College London School of Medicine, Denmark Hill Campus, Bessemer Rd, London SE5 9PJ, UK. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Ward NS. Mechanisms underlying recovery of motor function after stroke. Postgrad Med J. 2005; 81: 510–514.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Butefisch CM, Kleiser R, Seitz RJ. Post-lesional cerebral reorganisation: evidence from functional neuroimaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Physiol Paris. 2006; 99: 437–454.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Sasaki Y, Araki T, Millbrandt J. Stimulation of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide biosynthetic pathways delays axonal degeneration after axotomy. J Neurosci. 2006; 26: 8484–8491.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Carmichael ST. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of neural repair after stroke: making waves. Ann Neurol. 2006; 59: 735–742.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Tsai PT, Ohab JJ, Kertesz N, Groszer M, Matter C, Gao J, Liu X, Wu H, Carmichael ST. A critical role of erythropoietin receptor in neurogenesis and post-stroke recovery. J Neurosci. 2006; 26: 1269–1274.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Buccino G, Solodkin A, Small SL. Functions of the mirror neuron system: implications for neurorehabilitation. Cogn Behav Neurol. 2006; 19: 55–63.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Sharma N, Pomeroy VM, Baron JC. Motor imagery: a backdoor to the motor system after stroke? Stroke. 2006; 37: 1941–1952.LinkGoogle Scholar8 Platz T, van Kaick S, Moller L, Freund S, Winter T, Kim IH. Impairment-oriented training and adaptive motor cortex reorganisation after stroke: a fTMS study. J Neurol. 2005; 252: 1363–1371.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Krakauer JW. Motor learning: its relevance to stroke recovery and neurorehabilitation. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006; 19: 84–90.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Hummel FC, Cohen LG. Non-invasive brain stimulation: a new strategy to improve neurorehabilitation after stroke? Lancet Neurol. 2006; 5: 708–712.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Talelli P, Greenwood RJ, Rothwell JC. Arm function after stroke: neurophysiological correlates and recovery mechanisms assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006; 117: 1641–1659.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Di Lazzaro V, Dileone M, Profice P, Pilato F, Cioni B, Meglio M, Capone F, Tonali PA, Rothwell JC. Direct demonstration that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can enhance corticospinal excitability in stroke. Stroke. 2006; 37: 2850–2853.LinkGoogle Scholar13 Brown JA, Lutsep HL, Weinand M, Cramer SC. Motor cortex stimulation for the enhancement of recovery from stroke: a prospective, multicenter safety study. Neurosurgery. 2006; 58: 464–473.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Lefaucheur JP. Stroke recovery can be enhanced by using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Neurophysiol Clin. 2006; 36: 105–115.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Braun SM, Beurskens AJ, Borm PJ, Schack T, Wade DT. The effects of mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87: 842–852.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Fjaertoft H, Indredavik B, Johnsen R, Lydersen S. Acute stroke unit care combined with early supported discharge. Long-term effects on quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2004; 18: 580–586.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Diserens K, Michel P, Bogousslavsky J. Early mobilisation after stroke: review of the literature. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2006; 22: 183–190.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Stewart KC, Cauraugh JH, Summers JJ. Bilateral movement training and stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Sci. 2006; 244: 89–95.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Van Peppen RP, Kortsmit M, Lindeman E, Kwakkel G. Effects of visual feedback therapy on postural control in bilateral standing after stroke: a systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2006; 38: 3–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Pomeroy VM, King L, Pollock A, Baily-Hallam A, Langhorne P. Electrostimulation for promoting recovery of movement or functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 19: CD003241.Google Scholar21 Larsen T, Olsen TS, Sorensen J. Early home-supported discharge of stroke patients: a health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006; 22: 313–320.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Redfern J, McKevitt C, Wolfe CD. Development of complex interventions in stroke care: a systematic review. Stroke. 2006; 37: 2410–2419.LinkGoogle Scholar eLetters(0)eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Disselhorst-Klug C (2021) Robotische Unterstützung in Therapie und Pflege Telemedizin, 10.1007/978-3-662-60611-7_41, (467-476), . Ekerete I, Nugent C, Giggins O and McLaughlin J (2020) Unobtrusive Sensing Solution for Post-stroke Rehabilitation Smart Assisted Living, 10.1007/978-3-030-25590-9_3, (43-62), . Lu K, Xu G, Li W, Huo C, Liu Q, Lv Z, Wang Y, Li Z and Fan Y (2019) Frequency‐specific functional connectivity related to the rehabilitation task of stroke patients, Medical Physics, 10.1002/mp.13398, 46:4, (1545-1560), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019. Mateos-Serrano M and Calvo-Muñoz I (2017) Terapia por restricción del lado sano en pacientes con ictus. Revisión sistemática, Rehabilitación, 10.1016/j.rh.2017.01.001, 51:4, (234-246), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2017. de Oliveira Cacho R, Cacho E, Ortolan R, Cliquet A and Borges G (2015) Trunk Restraint Therapy, Medicine, 10.1097/MD.0000000000000641, 94:12, (e641), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2015. Parker J, Mawson S, Mountain G, Nasr N and Zheng H (2014) Stroke patients’ utilisation of extrinsic feedback from computer-based technology in the home: a multiple case study realistic evaluation, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10.1186/1472-6947-14-46, 14:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014. Parker J, Mawson S, Mountain G, Nasr N, Davies R and Zheng H (2013) The provision of feedback through computer-based technology to promote self-managed post-stroke rehabilitation in the home, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10.3109/17483107.2013.845611, 9:6, (529-538), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2014. Soares A, Woellner S, Andrade C, Mesadri T, Bruckheimer A and Hounsell M (2014) The use of Virtual Reality for upper limb rehabilitation of hemiparetic Stroke patients, Fisioterapia em Movimento, 10.1590/0103-5150.027.003.AO01, 27:3, (309-317), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014. Bermudez i Badia S, Garcia Morgade A, Samaha H and Verschure P Using a Hybrid Brain Computer Interface and Virtual Reality System to Monitor and Promote Cortical Reorganization through Motor Activity and Motor Imagery Training, IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 10.1109/TNSRE.2012.2229295, 21:2, (174-181) Carvalho D, Teixeira S, Lucas M, Yuan T, Chaves F, Peressutti C, Machado S, Bittencourt J, Menéndez-González M, Nardi A, Velasques B, Cagy M, Piedade R, Ribeiro P and Arias-Carrión O (2013) The mirror neuron system in post-stroke rehabilitation, International Archives of Medicine, 10.1186/1755-7682-6-41, 6:1, (41), . Parker J, Mountain G and Hammerton J (2011) A review of the evidence underpinning the use of visual and auditory feedback for computer technology in post-stroke upper-limb rehabilitation, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 10.3109/17483107.2011.556209, 6:6, (465-472), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2011. Isaac V, Stewart R and Krishnamoorthy E (2010) Caregiver Burden and Quality of Life of Older Persons With Stroke, Journal of Applied Gerontology, 10.1177/0733464810369340, 30:5, (643-654), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2011. Kohler F, Schmitz-Rode T and Disselhorst-Klug C (2010) Introducing a feedback training system for guided home rehabilitation, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 10.1186/1743-0003-7-2, 7:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010. Baeten S, van Exel N, Dirks M, Koopmanschap M, Dippel D and Niessen L (2010) Lifetime health effects and medical costs of integrated stroke services - a non-randomized controlled cluster-trial based life table approach, Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 10.1186/1478-7547-8-21, 8:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010. Sakoh M, Ohmura Y, Fujii R, Horimi H, Ishihara K and Ishikawa M (2010) Examination of acute treatment strategies in 314 patients with putaminal hemorrhage from the view point of functional prognosis in Kaifukuki rehabilitation wards, Nosotchu, 10.3995/jstroke.32.602, 32:6, (602-610), . Murata T, Terakawa Y, Okada Y, Yamamoto N, Shimotake K, Tominaga T and Tsuruno T (2010) The outcome of acute cerebral infarction with stroke treatment in an intra-hospital referral model, Nosotchu, 10.3995/jstroke.32.346, 32:4, (346-350), . Menniti F, Ren J, Coskran T, Liu J, Morton D, Sietsma D, Som A, Stephenson D, Tate B and Finklestein S (2009) Phosphodiesterase 5A Inhibitors Improve Functional Recovery after Stroke in Rats: Optimized Dosing Regimen with Implications for Mechanism, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 10.1124/jpet.109.156919, 331:3, (842-850), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2009. Caplan L (2009) Recovery and Rehabilitation Caplan's Stroke, 10.1016/B978-1-4160-4721-6.50021-3, (621-636), . Cameirao M, Bermudez i Badia S, Oller E and Verschure P (2008) Using a Multi-Task Adaptive VR System for Upper Limb Rehabilitation in the Acute Phase of Stroke 2008 Virtual Rehabilitation, 10.1109/ICVR.2008.4625112, 978-1-4244-2700-0, (2-7) Wing K, Lynskey J and Bosch P (2015) Whole-Body Intensive Rehabilitation Is Feasible and Effective in Chronic Stroke Survivors: A Retrospective Data Analysis, Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 10.1310/tsr1503-247, 15:3, (247-255), Online publication date: 1-May-2008. Carey L and Seitz R (2016) Functional Neuroimaging in Stroke Recovery and Neurorehabilitation: Conceptual Issues and Perspectives, International Journal of Stroke, 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2007.00164.x, 2:4, (245-264), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2007. Cameirao M, Badia S, Zimmerli L, Oller E and Verschure P (2007) The Rehabilitation Gaming System: a Virtual Reality Based System for the Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Motor Deficits 2007 Virtual Rehabilitation, 10.1109/ICVR.2007.4362125, 978-1-4244-1203-7, (29-33) Stinear C, Fleming M, Barber P and Byblow W (2007) Lateralization of motor imagery following stroke, Clinical Neurophysiology, 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.05.008, 118:8, (1794-1801), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007. Brandt T (2007) Motor and Functional Recovery After Stroke, Stroke, 38:7, (2030-2031), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007. Jöbges M (2007) Motorische Rehabilitation zentralnervös bedingter Defizite, Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie, 10.1024/1016-264X.18.1.23, 18:1, (23-27), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. February 2007Vol 38, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000254944.91297.a3PMID: 17204671 Manuscript receivedNovember 22, 2006Manuscript acceptedNovember 28, 2006Originally publishedJanuary 4, 2007 KeywordsrehabilitationPDF download Advertisement" @default.
• W2003032303 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2003032303 creator A5017687489 @default.
• W2003032303 creator A5071163221 @default.
• W2003032303 date "2007-02-01" @default.
• W2003032303 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2003032303 title "Recent Advances in Stroke Rehabilitation 2006" @default.
• W2003032303 cites W1974716477 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W1988597595 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2038084692 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2043051502 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2057726628 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2063539442 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2070800021 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2071694847 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2073246877 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2091987302 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2096597907 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2098060666 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2103364651 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2123822573 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2136346440 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2143390948 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2144175475 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2146338459 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2155262322 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2157525790 @default.
• W2003032303 cites W2159040983 @default.
• W2003032303 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000254944.91297.a3" @default.
• W2003032303 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17204671" @default.
• W2003032303 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2003032303 type Work @default.
• W2003032303 sameAs 2003032303 @default.
• W2003032303 citedByCount "42" @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032012 @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032013 @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032014 @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032015 @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032017 @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032019 @default.
• W2003032303 countsByYear W20030323032020 @default.
• W2003032303 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2003032303 hasAuthorship W2003032303A5017687489 @default.
• W2003032303 hasAuthorship W2003032303A5071163221 @default.
• W2003032303 hasBestOaLocation W20030323031 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C2778818304 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C2780645631 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConcept C99508421 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C127413603 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C1862650 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C2778818304 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C2780645631 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C71924100 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C78519656 @default.
• W2003032303 hasConceptScore W2003032303C99508421 @default.
• W2003032303 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2003032303 hasLocation W20030323031 @default.
• W2003032303 hasLocation W20030323032 @default.
• W2003032303 hasOpenAccess W2003032303 @default.
• W2003032303 hasPrimaryLocation W20030323031 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W1973986128 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W2187054182 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W2299888487 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W2405192179 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W2419434265 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W2811207875 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W3003395740 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W3094141259 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W3198272494 @default.
• W2003032303 hasRelatedWork W4377043613 @default.
• W2003032303 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W2003032303 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2003032303 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2003032303 magId "2003032303" @default.
• W2003032303 workType "article" @default.