↓ Skip to main content

Physical excercise programs in CKD: lights, shades and perspectives: a position paper of the “Physical Exercise in CKD Study Group” of the Italian Society of Nephrology

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nephrology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Physical excercise programs in CKD: lights, shades and perspectives: a position paper of the “Physical Exercise in CKD Study Group” of the Italian Society of Nephrology
Published in
Journal of Nephrology, February 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40620-014-0169-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Filippo Aucella, Yuri Battaglia, Vincenzo Bellizzi, Davide Bolignano, Alessandro Capitanini, Adamasco Cupisti

Abstract

In the general population, moderate exercise is associated with several health benefits including a decreased risk of obesity, coronary heart disease, stroke, certain types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In chronic kidney disease (CKD), physical inability is an independent risk of death. Health benefits of regular exercise in CKD patients include improvements in functional and psychological measures such as aerobic and walking capacity and health-related quality of life. Nonetheless, in CKD patients exercise rehabilitation is not routinely prescribed. Renal patients are heterogeneous across the different stages of CKD so that the assessment of physical capability is mandatory for a correct exercise program prescription. To plan appropriate exercise programs in the CKD setting, targeted professional figures should be actively involved as many psychological or logistic barriers may hamper exercise implementation in these subjects. Different approaches, such as home exercise rehabilitation programs, supervised exercise training or in-hospital gym may theoretically be proposed. However, physical exercise should always be tailored to the individual capacity and comorbidities and each patient should ideally be involved in the decision-making process.

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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 38 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 20%
Sports and Recreations 15 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 42 33%
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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#18,831,119
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#723
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,120
of 359,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 359,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.