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 |
Effects of resistance training protocols on nonlinear analysis of heart rate variability in metabolic syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1414-431x20187459 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
N. Turri-Silva, D.M. Garner, S.H. Moosavi, A.L. Ricci-Vitor, D.G.D. Christofaro, J. Netto, L.M. Vanzella, L.C.M. Vanderlei |
| Abstract |
Despite the various standard non-linear measurements used in autonomic modulation (AM) assessments usually being applied to long time-series, such analyses can sometimes be applied to shorter term series. To overcome this disadvantage, chaotic global methods were formulated by putting together heart rate variability (HRV) linear methods. Chaos provides information about vegetative function control related to cardiovascular risks. Applying this method can be useful to investigate the complexity of the health condition after resistance training protocols, as a therapeutic intervention in AM in metabolic syndrome individuals (MetS). This study aimed to compare the effects of two resistance training programs (conventional vs functional) in MetS using nonlinear analysis of AM. MetS subjects (n=50) of both sexes aged 40 to 60 years were randomly divided into two programs; a group of 12 people served as a control group. Both groups performed 30 sessions of training. AM was assessed in the chaos domain by chaotic global techniques. The main results showed that both resistance training, functional and conventional, increased chaos when compared to the control group, respectively, observed by chaotic forward parameter (CFP)1 (13.9±17.9 vs 12.8±14.4 vs -2.23±7.96; P≤0.05) and CFP3 (15.4±19.8 vs 21.9±13.2 vs -4.82±11.4; P≤0.05). In addition, 30 sessions of both resistance programs increased chaos, and non-linear analysis enabled discrimination of AM after interventions when compared to the control group. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 37 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 13 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 1% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 48% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,989,045
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#676
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,566
of 449,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#20
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 449,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.