↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Respiratory muscle training for cervical spinal cord injury

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 (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
305 Mendeley
Title
Respiratory muscle training for cervical spinal cord injury
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008507.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J Berlowitz, Jeanette Tamplin

Abstract

Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) severely comprises respiratory function due to paralysis and impairment of the respiratory muscles. Various types of respiratory muscle training (RMT) to improve respiratory function for people with cervical SCI have been described in the literature. A systematic review of this literature is needed to determine the effectiveness of RMT (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on pulmonary function, dyspnoea, respiratory complications, respiratory muscle strength, and quality of life for people with cervical SCI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 305 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 302 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 22%
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Student > Postgraduate 25 8%
Researcher 25 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 7%
Other 62 20%
Unknown 60 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 20%
Neuroscience 14 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Sports and Recreations 11 4%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 68 22%

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 26 March 2014.
All research outputs
#3,607,859
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,131
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,650
of 159,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 159,640 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.