The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Focal seizures due to chronic localized encephalitis
Open accessAbstract
Background Hamstring strain is a common injury in sprinters and jumpers, and therefore time to return to sport and secondary prevention become of particular concern. Objective To compare the effectiveness of two rehabilitation protocols after acute hamstring injury in Swedish elite sprinters and jumpers by evaluating time needed to return to full participation in the training process. Study design Prospective randomised comparison of two rehabilitation protocols. Methods Fifty-six Swedish elite sprinters and jumpers with acute hamstring injury, verified by MRI, were randomly assigned to one of two rehabilitation protocols. Twenty-eight athletes were assigned to a protocol emphasising lengthening exercises, L-protocol, and 28 athletes to a protocol consisting of conventional exercises, C-protocol. The outcome measure was the number of days to return to full training. Re-injuries were registered during a period of 12 months after return. Results Time to return was significantly shorter for the athletes in the L-protocol, mean 49 days (1SD±26, range 18–107 days), compared with the C-protocol, mean 86 days (1SD±34, range 26–140 days). Irrespective of protocol, hamstring injuries where the proximal free tendon was involved took a significantly longer time to return than injuries that did not involve the free tendon, L-protocol: mean 73 vs 31 days and C-protocol: mean 116 vs 63 days, respectively. Two reinjuries were registered, both in the C-protocol. Conclusions A rehabilitation protocol emphasising lengthening type of exercises is more effective than a protocol containing conventional exercises in promoting time to return in Swedish elite sprinters and jumpers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The role of inflammation in epilepsy
Vezzani, A., French, J., Bartfai, T., & Baram, T. Z. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2010.178 · Cited by 1,876
The Role of Excitotoxicity in Neurodegenerative Disease
Doble, A. (1999) · Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0163-7258(98)00042-4 · Cited by 723
Szczepiorkowski, Z. M., Winters, J. L., Bandarenko, N., Kim, H. C., Linenberger, M. L., Marques, M. B., Sarode, R., Schwartz, J., Weinstein, R., & Shaz, B. H. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Apheresis · doi:10.1002/jca.20240 · Cited by 508
Metadata
- Authors
- Rasmussen, T., Olszewski, J., & Lloyd-Smith, D.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 1958-06
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 435-435
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2170164010
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Focal seizures due to chronic localized encephalitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.8.6.435
- The paper
- Rasmussen, T., Olszewski, J., & Lloyd-Smith, D. (1958). Focal seizures due to chronic localized encephalitis. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.8.6.435
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.