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 |
Breathing exercises for dysfunctional breathing/hyperventilation syndrome in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010376.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola J Barker, Mandy Jones, Neil E O'Connell, Mark L Everard |
| Abstract |
Dysfunctional breathing is described as chronic or recurrent changes in breathing pattern causing respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms. It is an umbrella term that encompasses hyperventilation syndrome and vocal cord dysfunction. Dysfunctional breathing affects 10% of the general population. Symptoms include dyspnoea, chest tightness, sighing and chest pain which arise secondary to alterations in respiratory pattern and rate. Little is known about dysfunctional breathing in children. Preliminary data suggest 5.3% or more of children with asthma have dysfunctional breathing and that, unlike in adults, it is associated with poorer asthma control. It is not known what proportion of the general paediatric population is affected. Breathing training is recommended as a first-line treatment for adults with dysfunctional breathing (with or without asthma) but no similar recommendations are available for the management of children. As such, breathing retraining is adapted from adult regimens based on the age and ability of the child. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 27% |
| Spain | 2 | 18% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 447 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 443 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 72 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 57 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 42 | 9% |
| Researcher | 34 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 4% |
| Other | 80 | 18% |
| Unknown | 142 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 106 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 77 | 17% |
| Psychology | 20 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 15 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 15 | 3% |
| Other | 48 | 11% |
| Unknown | 166 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,276,053
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,774
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,851
of 321,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 321,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 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.