| Title |
Blood pressure, salivary cortisol, and inflammatory cytokine outcomes in senior female cancer survivors enrolled in a tai chi chih randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11764-014-0395-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca A. Campo, Kathleen C. Light, Kathleen O’Connor, Yoshio Nakamura, David Lipschitz, Paul C. LaStayo, Lisa M. Pappas, Kenneth M. Boucher, Michael R. Irwin, Harry R. Hill, Thomas B Martins, Neeraj Agarwal, Anita Y. Kinney |
| Abstract |
Older cancer survivors are a vulnerable population due to an increased risk for chronic diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease) compounded with treatment late-effects and declines in physical functioning. Therefore, interventions that reduce chronic disease risk factors (i.e., blood pressure, chronic inflammation, and cortisol) are important in this population. Tai chi chih (TCC) is a mind-body exercise associated with reductions in chronic disease risk factors, but has not been examined with older cancer survivors. In a feasibility randomized controlled trial of TCC, we examined secondary outcomes of blood pressure, salivary cortisol, and inflammatory cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6, IL-12, tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-10, IL-4) due to their implications in chronic diseases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 9% |
| Researcher | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 17% |
| Unknown | 48 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 16 | 11% |
| Psychology | 13 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 10% |
| Unknown | 56 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,941,074
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#137
of 967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,468
of 236,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 236,628 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.