↓ Skip to main content

The Potential Benefits and Inherent Risks of Vibration as a Non-Drug Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis

Overview of attention for article published in Current Osteoporosis Reports, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
The Potential Benefits and Inherent Risks of Vibration as a Non-Drug Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis
Published in
Current Osteoporosis Reports, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11914-012-0132-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Ete Chan, Gunes Uzer, Clinton T. Rubin

Abstract

The delivery of mechanical signals to the skeleton using vibration is being considered as a non-drug treatment of osteoporosis. Delivered over a range of magnitudes and frequencies, vibration has been shown to be both anabolic and anti-catabolic to the musculoskeletal tissues, yet caution must be emphasized as these mechanical signals, particularly chronic exposure to higher intensities, is a known pathogen to many physiological systems. In contrast, accumulating preclinical and clinical evidence indicates that low intensity vibration (LIV) improves bone quality through regulating the activity of cells responsible for bone remodeling, as well as biasing the differentiation fate of their mesenchymal and hematopoietic stem cell progenitors. In vitro studies provide insights into the biologic mechanisms of LIV, and indicate that cells respond to these low magnitude signals through a distinct mechanism driven not by matrix strain but acceleration. These cell, animal, and human studies may represent the foundation of a safe, non-drug means to protect and improve the musculoskeletal system of the elderly, injured, and infirmed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 53 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Engineering 7 12%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 February 2021.
All research outputs
#13,065,845
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#212
of 550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,404
of 283,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Osteoporosis Reports
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 550 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 283,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.