↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
147 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.
Article details
Title
A pilot study examining the effects of low-volume high-intensity interval training and continuous low to moderate intensity training on quality of life, functional capacity and cardiovascular risk factors in cancer survivors
Published in
PeerJ, October 2016
DOI 10.7717/peerj.2613
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of low-volume high-intensity interval training and continuous low to moderate intensity training on quality of life, functional capacity and cardiovascular disease risk factors in cancer survivors. Cancer survivors within 24 months post-diagnosis were randomly assigned into the low-volume high-intensity interval training group (n = 8) or the continuous low to moderate intensity training group (n = 8) group for 36 sessions (12 weeks) of supervised exercise. The low-volume high-intensity interval training (LVHIIT) group performed 7 × 30 s intervals (≥85% maximal heart rate) and the continuous low to moderate intensity training (CLMIT) group performed continuous aerobic training for 20 min (≤55% maximal heart rate) on a stationary bike or treadmill. Significant improvements (time) were observed for 13 of the 23 dependent variables (ES 0.05-0.61, p ≤ 0.05). An interaction effect was observed for six minute walk test (18.53% [32.43-4.63] ES 0.50, p ≤ 0.01) with the LVHIIT group demonstrating greater improvements. These preliminary findings suggest that both interventions can induce improvements in quality of life, functional capacity and selected cardiovascular disease risk factors. The LVHIIT program was well tolerated by the participants and our results suggest that LVHIIT is the preferred modality to improve fitness (6MWT); it remains to be seen which intervention elicits the most clinically relevant outcomes for patients. A larger sample size with a control group is required to confirm the significance of these findings.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 16%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 44 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 12%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 44 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 2024.
All research outputs
#1,710,739
of 32,634,023 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#1,484
of 16,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,230
of 329,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#25
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,634,023 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 329,392 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.