↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the impact of passive external lower limb compression on central and peripheral hemodynamics during exercise

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Investigating the impact of passive external lower limb compression on central and peripheral hemodynamics during exercise
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00421-016-3331-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Book, Chekema N. Prince, Rodrigo Villar, Richard L. Hughson, Sean D. Peterson

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of graduated compression socks (GCS) on enhancing muscle blood flow and oxygenation during exercise and recovery in healthy subjects. Twelve healthy volunteers completed a protocol involving baseline, exercise, and recovery periods with and without GCS. Each test was repeated twice to assess repeatability of the results. The applied sock pressure was measured prior to experimentation using a custom pressure sensing system, and modified as necessary using tensor bandages to control the applied load. During each of the experimental phases, blood velocity in the popliteal artery, calf muscle tissue oxygenation, muscle activity, heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac output, and applied pressure from the sock were measured. Popliteal artery diameter was measured during baseline and recovery periods. The GCS significantly reduced deoxyhemoglobin (HHb) in the leg during baseline (HHb, p = 0.001) and total blood volume and HHb in the leg during exercise (total hemoglobin, p = 0.01; HHb, p = 0.02). However, there were no differences in leg muscle blood flow velocity or any other variables with and without GCS at baseline, exercise, or recovery. Interestingly, it was found that the local applied sock pressure was very sensitive to the sock application process and, furthermore, the pressure varied considerably during exercise. No significant changes were observed in measures reflecting oxygen delivery for healthy subjects using GCS during exercise and recovery. Applied sock pressure was carefully controlled, thus eliminating the sock application process as a variable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Engineering 7 9%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 25 34%
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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,318
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,465
of 405,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 405,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.