↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Surgical masks and filtering facepiece class 2 respirators (FFP2) have no major physiological effects at rest and during moderate exercise at 3000-m altitude: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Journal of Travel Medicine, March 2023
DOI 10.1093/jtm/taad031
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of face masks has been recommended or enforced in several situations, however their effects on physiological parameters and cognitive performance at high altitude are unknown. Eight healthy participants (four females) rested and exercised (cycling, 1 W/kg) while wearing no mask, a surgical mask, or a filtering facepiece class 2 respirator (FFP2), both in normoxia and hypobaric hypoxia corresponding to an altitude of 3000 m. Arterialised oxygen saturation (SaO2), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and carbon dioxide (PaCO2), heart and respiratory rate, pulse oximetry (SpO2), cerebral oxygenation, visual analogue scales for dyspnoea and mask's discomfort were systematically investigated. Resting cognitive performance and exercising tympanic temperature were also assessed. Mask use had a significant effect on PaCO2 (overall +1.2 ± 1.7 mmHg). There was no effect of mask use on all other investigated parameters except for dyspnoea and discomfort, which were highest with FFP2. Both masks were associated with a similar non-significant decrease in SaO2 during exercise in normoxia (-0.5% ± 0.4%) and, especially, in hypobaric hypoxia (-1.8% ± 1.5%), with similar trends for PaO2 and SpO2. Although mask use was associated with higher rates of dyspnoea, it had no clinically relevant impact on gas exchange at 3000 m at rest and during moderate exercise, and no detectable effect on resting cognitive performance. Wearing a surgical mask or an FFP2 can be considered safe for healthy people living, working, or spending their leisure time in mountains, high-altitude cities, or other hypobaric environments (e.g. aircrafts) up to an altitude of 3000 m.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Lecturer 1 3%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 20 65%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 20 65%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,874,214
of 26,868,950 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Travel Medicine
#866
of 1,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,995
of 436,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Travel Medicine
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,868,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 436,312 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.