↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical training for asthma

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
223 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
363 Mendeley
Title
Physical training for asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001116.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin V Carson, Madhu G Chandratilleke, Joanna Picot, Malcolm P Brinn, Adrian J Esterman, Brian J Smith

Abstract

People with asthma may show less tolerance to exercise due to worsening asthma symptoms during exercise or other reasons such as deconditioning as a consequence of inactivity. Some may restrict activities as per medical advice or family influence and this might result in reduced physical fitness. Physical training programs aim to improve physical fitness, neuromuscular coordination and self confidence. Subjectively, many people with asthma report that they are symptomatically better when fit, but results from trials have varied and have been difficult to compare because of different designs and training protocols. Also, as exercise can induce asthma, the safety of exercise programmes needs to be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 360 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 16%
Student > Bachelor 56 15%
Researcher 34 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 7%
Student > Postgraduate 18 5%
Other 52 14%
Unknown 122 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 53 15%
Sports and Recreations 22 6%
Social Sciences 14 4%
Psychology 12 3%
Other 26 7%
Unknown 135 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 10 December 2023.
All research outputs
#891,644
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,624
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,549
of 220,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 220,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.