↓ Skip to main content

Is Exercise Training Appropriate for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Receiving Continuous Inotropic Infusion? A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
41 patents

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Is Exercise Training Appropriate for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Receiving Continuous Inotropic Infusion? A Review
Published in
Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology, January 2018
DOI 10.1177/1179546817751438
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Exercise-based rehabilitation programs have been reported to have beneficial effects for patients with heart failure. However, there is little evidence about whether this is the case in patients with more severe heart failure. In particular, there is a question in the clinical setting whether patients with advanced heart failure and continuous inotropic infusion should be prescribed exercise training. In contrast, many studies conclude that prolonged immobility associated with heart failure profoundly impairs physical function and promotes muscle wasting that could further hasten the course of heart failure. By contrast, exercise training has various effects not only in improving exercise capacity but also on vascular function, skeletal muscle, and autonomic balance. In this review, we summarize the effectiveness and discuss methods of exercise training in patients with advanced heart failure receiving continuous inotropic agents such as dobutamine.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 64 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 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 27 42%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Sports and Recreations 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 28 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 September 2026.
All research outputs
#9,754,299
of 31,718,347 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology
#77
of 240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,151
of 477,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Medicine Insights: Cardiology
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,718,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 477,662 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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.