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 |
Systematic review of the synergist muscle ablation model for compensatory hypertrophy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/1806-9282.63.02.164 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stella Maris Lins Terena, Kristianne Porta Santos Fernandes, Sandra Kalill Bussadori, Alessandro Melo Deana, Raquel Agnelli Mesquita-Ferrari |
| Abstract |
The aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of the experimental synergists muscle ablation model to promote muscle hypertrophy, determine the period of greatest hypertrophy and its influence on muscle fiber types and determine differences in bilateral and unilateral removal to reduce the number of animals used in this model. Following the application of the eligibility criteria for the mechanical overload of the plantar muscle in rats, nineteen papers were included in the review. The results reveal a greatest hypertrophy occurring between days 12 and 15, and based on the findings, synergist muscle ablation is an efficient model for achieving rapid hypertrophy and the contralateral limb can be used as there was no difference between unilateral and bilateral surgery, which reduces the number of animals used in this model. This model differs from other overload models (exercise and training) regarding the characteristics involved in the hypertrophy process (acute) and result in a chronic muscle adaptation with selective regulation and modification of fast-twitch fibers in skeletal muscle. This is an efficient and rapid model for compensatory hypertrophy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 33% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 17% |
| Norway | 1 | 17% |
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 27% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 12% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,476,767
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#172
of 1,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,250
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 424,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.