↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of two commonly used reference materials for exercise bicycle tests with a Swedish clinical database of patients with normal outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Physiology & Functional Imaging, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of two commonly used reference materials for exercise bicycle tests with a Swedish clinical database of patients with normal outcome
Published in
Clinical Physiology & Functional Imaging, October 2013
DOI 10.1111/cpf.12097
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Brudin, L. Jorfeldt, O. Pahlm

Abstract

Reference values for working capacity, blood pressure, heart rate, perceived exertion, etc. during bicycle exercise tests have been sought after for many years. This is because earlier commonly used reference values for physical work capacity have been either too low or too high when compared to the clinical experience of several Swedish departments of clinical physiology. The aim of the study was to compare two commonly used reference materials with normal outcomes from a clinical database.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Sports and Recreations 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 2 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 October 2019.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Physiology & Functional Imaging
#467
of 697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,271
of 225,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Physiology & Functional Imaging
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 225,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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.