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 |
Prolonged use of Kinesiotaping does not enhance functional performance and joint proprioception in healthy young males: Randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0151 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Igor Magalhães, Martim Bottaro, João R. Freitas, Jake Carmo, João P. C. Matheus, Rodrigo L. Carregaro |
| Abstract |
Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of continuous (48-hour) use of Kinesiotaping (KT) on functional and proprioceptive performance in healthy, physically active men. Method Twenty-six healthy, physically active men (21.8±2.2 years old) were randomly allocated into two groups: 1) Kinesiotaping group (KG, tape applied with 40% tension for rectus femoris activation); 2) Control (CG, tape applied over rectus femoris without additional tension). Subjects attended the laboratory on five separate occasions: 1) familiarization; 2) baseline measurement without tape (BL); 3) immediately post-tape application (T0); 4) 24h (T24); and 5) 48h (T48) post-tape application. The outcomes were distance in the single (SHT) and triple hop tests (THT), vertical jump height (VJH), vertical jump power (VJP), and rate of force development (RFD). A mixed-model ANOVA was applied to verify differences between and within groups. Results No significant (p >0.05) differences were found in the SHT and THT between groups and moments. Likewise, the main effects for VJH, VJP, and RFD were not significant (p >0.05). Conclusion The present study demonstrated no significant immediate or prolonged (48h) effects of KT on functional and proprioceptive performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 19 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,950,089
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#298
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,913
of 339,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 339,057 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.