↓ 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 (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
435 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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 435 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 432 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 18%
Student > Bachelor 56 13%
Researcher 32 7%
Student > Postgraduate 27 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 6%
Other 75 17%
Unknown 142 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 80 18%
Neuroscience 16 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 3%
Psychology 13 3%
Other 48 11%
Unknown 155 36%
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
#8,698,992
of 25,928,676 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,698
of 13,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,376
of 210,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#188
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,928,676 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 210,288 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.