| Title |
Exercise interventions for upper‐limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005211.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margaret L McNeely, Kristin Campbell, Maria Ospina, Brian H Rowe, Kelly Dabbs, Terry P Klassen, John Mackey, Kerry Courneya |
| Abstract |
Upper-limb dysfunction is a commonly reported side effect of treatment for breast cancer and may include decreased shoulder range of motion (the range through which a joint can be moved) (ROM) and strength, pain and lymphedema. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 States | 3 | 14% |
| Canada | 3 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Chile | 2 | 10% |
| Sweden | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 76% |
| Scientists | 4 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 456 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 447 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 77 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 65 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 51 | 11% |
| Researcher | 26 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 5% |
| Other | 81 | 18% |
| Unknown | 134 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 136 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 84 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 29 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 2% |
| Other | 37 | 8% |
| Unknown | 148 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 27 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,962,035
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,182
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,222
of 96,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 96,738 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.