↓ Skip to main content

Skeletal Muscle Loading Changes its Regenerative Capacity

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Skeletal Muscle Loading Changes its Regenerative Capacity
Published in
Sports Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0462-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Teixeira, José Alberto Duarte

Abstract

Whenever skeletal muscle insults occur, both by functional impositions or other injury forms, skeletal muscle repair (SMR) follows. The SMR succeeds when proper skeletal muscle regeneration and limited fibrosis ensue. Muscle fiber replenishment by fibrosis negatively affects the tissue quality and functionality and, furthermore, represents the worst post-injury phenotypic adaptation. Acute muscle injury treatment commonly follows the RICE method-rest, ice, compression, and elevation. This immediate immobilization seems to be beneficial to preserving the tissue structure and avoiding further destruction; however, if these interventions are delayed, the risk of muscle atrophy and its deleterious-related effects increase, with resultant impaired SMR. Moreover, a growing body of evidence shows positive skeletal muscle loading (SML) effects during SMR since it seems to effectively increase satellite cells (SCs) in their activation, proliferation, self-renewal, and differentiation capacities. Additionally, recent data show that SML may also influence the functions of other participants in SMR, compelling SMR to achieve less fibrotic accretion and accelerated muscle mass recovery. Moreover, given the SML effects on SCs, it is plausible to consider that these can increase the myofibers' basal myogenic potential. Thus, it seems relevant to scrutinize the possible acute and chronic SML therapeutic and prophylactic effects regarding the SMR process.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 78 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 18 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Engineering 6 8%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 03 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,673,596
of 23,540,668 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,228
of 2,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,269
of 400,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#36
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,540,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 400,319 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.