↓ Skip to main content

Exercise intolerance in pulmonary hypertension: mechanism, evaluation and clinical implications

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
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.
Title
Exercise intolerance in pulmonary hypertension: mechanism, evaluation and clinical implications
Published in
Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1080/17476348.2016.1191353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abraham Samuel Babu, Ross Arena, Jonathan Myers, Ramachandran Padmakumar, Arun G. Maiya, Lawrence P. Cahalin, Aaron B. Waxman, Carl J. Lavie

Abstract

Exercise intolerance in pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a major factor affecting activities of daily living and quality of life. Evaluation strategies (i.e., non-invasive and invasive tests) are integral to providing a comprehensive assessment of clinical and functional status. Despite a growing body of literature on the clinical consequences of PH, there are limited studies discussing the contribution of various physiological systems to exercise intolerance in this patient population. Areas covered: This review, through a search of various databases, describes the physiological basis for exercise intolerance across the various PH etiologies, highlights the various exercise evaluation methods and discusses the rationale for exercise training amongst those diagnosed with PH. Expert commentary: With the growing importance of evaluating exercise capacity in PH (class 1, Level C recommendation), understanding why exercise performance is altered in PH is crucial. Thus, the further study is required for better quality evidence in this area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 23 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 June 2016.
All research outputs
#12,956,939
of 22,870,727 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine
#302
of 770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,144
of 345,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine
#12
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,870,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 345,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.