↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Bone Mineral Density in Amateur Male Boxers and Active Non-boxers

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Sports Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
A Comparison of Bone Mineral Density in Amateur Male Boxers and Active Non-boxers
Published in
International Journal of Sports Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1055/s-0042-104200
Pubmed ID
Authors

K A Bolam, T L Skinner, A T Sax, K N Adlard, D R Taaffe

Abstract

To examine the site-specific osteogenic effect of upper limb impact-loading activity we compared the forearm and arm bone mineral density (BMD) of male boxers to that of active controls. A cross-sectional study was performed with 30 amateur male boxers (aged 18-44 years) and 32 age-matched, non-boxing, active controls. Participants had their regional and whole body BMD and bone mineral content (BMC) assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Hand grip strength, testosterone, oestradiol, sex hormone-binding globulin, vitamin D, lean and fat mass, and past and current physical activity were also assessed. Forearm and arm BMD were 1.5-2.2% higher in boxers than the control group although this was not statistically significant (p>0.05), with no significant difference for BMC (p>0.05). There were no differences between groups for spine, hip, or whole body BMD or BMC, or for body composition or hormone status. Within the arms, lean mass was associated with BMD and BMC in both boxers and the control group (BMD, r=0.60-0.76, p<0.001; BMC, r=0.67-0.82, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between amateur boxers and the control group for upper limb BMD and BMC. However, muscle mass appears to be particularly important to bone health of the upper limbs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 14 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Unspecified 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,374,585
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Sports Medicine
#1,580
of 2,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,823
of 333,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Sports Medicine
#32
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,272 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 333,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.