↓ 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 (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
419 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 419 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 416 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 19%
Student > Bachelor 55 13%
Researcher 30 7%
Student > Postgraduate 27 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 5%
Other 74 18%
Unknown 132 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 18%
Neuroscience 15 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 3%
Psychology 12 3%
Other 47 11%
Unknown 144 34%
Attention Score in Context

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
#7,375,665
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,907
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,403
of 197,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 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 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 197,849 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.