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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Inter-Changeability of Impedance Devices for Lymphedema Assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lymphatic Research and Biology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1089/lrb.2015.0026 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Malou van Zanten, Neil Piller, Leigh C Ward |
| Abstract |
Impedance technology is a popular technique for the early detection of lymphedema. The preferred approach is to use bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), with measurements being made with the subject lying supine, although attempts have been made to use single or multiple frequency impedance measurements obtained while the subject is standing. The aim of the present study was to determine the equivalence of these different approaches. Impedance measurements of the individual limbs of 37 healthy individuals were determined using both a stand-on, multi-frequency impedance device and a supine impedance spectroscopy instrument. Significant differences were found between the instruments in both absolute impedance values and, importantly, inter-limb impedance ratios. Since impedance ratios in healthy individuals provide the reference standard for detection of lymphedema, these data indicate that the methods are not interchangeable. Consideration of the errors associated with each method indicates that the BIS remains the preferred method for lymphedema detection. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 10 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
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 26 November 2015.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Lymphatic Research and Biology
#202
of 312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,951
of 392,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lymphatic Research and Biology
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 392,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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.