↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Inspiratory muscle training for asthma

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
580 Mendeley
Title
Inspiratory muscle training for asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003792.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ivanizia S Silva, Guilherme AF Fregonezi, Fernando AL Dias, Cibele TD Ribeiro, Ricardo O Guerra, Gardenia MH Ferreira

Abstract

In some people with asthma, expiratory airflow limitation, premature closure of small airways, activity of inspiratory muscles at the end of expiration and reduced pulmonary compliance may lead to lung hyperinflation. With the increase in lung volume, chest wall geometry is modified, shortening the inspiratory muscles and leaving them at a sub-optimal position in their length-tension relationship. Thus, the capacity of these muscles to generate tension is reduced. An increase in cross-sectional area of the inspiratory muscles caused by hypertrophy could offset the functional weakening induced by hyperinflation. Previous studies have shown that inspiratory muscle training promotes diaphragm hypertrophy in healthy people and patients with chronic heart failure, and increases the proportion of type I fibres and the size of type II fibres of the external intercostal muscles in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, its effects on clinical outcomes in patients with asthma are unclear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 580 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 573 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 88 15%
Student > Master 77 13%
Researcher 54 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 7%
Student > Postgraduate 38 7%
Other 115 20%
Unknown 167 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 139 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 120 21%
Sports and Recreations 26 4%
Unspecified 26 4%
Social Sciences 20 3%
Other 64 11%
Unknown 185 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#14,536,995
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,813
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,736
of 210,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#187
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 210,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.