| Title |
Inspiratory muscle warm-up does not improve cycling time-trial performance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-014-2914-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. A. Johnson, I. R. Gregson, D. E. Mills, J. T. Gonzalez, G. R. Sharpe |
| Abstract |
This study examined the effects of an active cycling warm-up, with and without the addition of an inspiratory muscle warm-up (IMW), on 10-km cycling time-trial performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 36% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| France | 1 | 9% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 20 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#4,751,423
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,290
of 4,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,024
of 241,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#21
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 241,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.