↓ 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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
181 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
313 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 313 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 310 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 19%
Student > Bachelor 56 18%
Researcher 29 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 86 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 16%
Sports and Recreations 21 7%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 23 7%
Unknown 100 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 02 October 2021.
All research outputs
#667,599
of 21,744,520 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,411
of 12,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,169
of 186,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,744,520 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 12,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 186,118 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 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.