↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Exercise training undertaken by people within 12 months of lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 Mendeley
Title
Exercise training undertaken by people within 12 months of lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009955.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vinicius Cavalheri, Fatim Tahirah, Mika L Nonoyama, Sue Jenkins, Kylie Hill

Abstract

Decreased exercise capacity and impairments in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are common in people following lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Exercise training has been demonstrated to confer gains in exercise capacity and HRQoL for people with a range of chronic conditions, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, as well as in people with cancers such as prostate and breast cancer. A programme of exercise training for people following lung resection for NSCLC may confer important gains in these outcomes. To date, evidence of its efficacy in this population is unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 274 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 65 23%
Researcher 34 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 11%
Other 14 5%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 55 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 16%
Psychology 19 7%
Sports and Recreations 18 6%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 25 9%
Unknown 65 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 17 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,698,096
of 21,347,688 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,530
of 12,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,054
of 176,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#78
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,688 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 176,818 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.