↓ Skip to main content

Sitting on a chair or an exercise ball: Various perspectives to guide decision making

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Biomechanics, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 2,241)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
linkedin
1 LinkedIn user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
Sitting on a chair or an exercise ball: Various perspectives to guide decision making
Published in
Clinical Biomechanics, January 2006
DOI 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.11.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

S.M. McGill, N.S. Kavcic, E. Harvey

Abstract

Prolonged sitting is recognized as a risk factor for the reporting of low back troubles. Despite the use of exercise balls in replacement of the office chair, little quantitative evidence exists to support this practice and hence motivated this research. Given the potential for several biological effects and mechanisms this study was approached with several layers of instrumentation to quantify differences in muscle activation, spine posture, spine compression and stability while sitting on an exercise ball versus a stable seat surface. Also, differences in the pressure distribution at the seat-user interface were quantified for the different seat surfaces to provide an objective perspective on the mechanism influencing perceived comfort levels.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 167 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 39 22%
Unknown 30 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 26%
Sports and Recreations 22 13%
Engineering 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 39 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#708,513
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Biomechanics
#21
of 2,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,439
of 172,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Biomechanics
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 172,800 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.