↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Protocol, and practical challenges, for a randomised controlled trial comparing the impact of high intensity interval training against standard care before major abdominal surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2701-9
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Risk factors, such as the number of pre-existing co-morbidities, the extent of the underlying pathology and the magnitude of the required operation, cannot be changed before surgery. It may, however, be possible to improve the cardiopulmonary fitness of the patient with an individualised exercise program. We are performing a randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the impact of High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on preoperative cardiopulmonary fitness and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Consecutive eligible patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery are being randomised to HIIT or standard care in a 1:1 ratio. Participants allocated to HIIT will perform 14 exercise sessions on a stationary cycle ergometer, over a period of 4-6 weeks before surgery. The sessions, which are individualised, aim to start with ten repeated 1-min blocks of intense exercise with a target of reaching a heart rate exceeding 90% of the age predicted maximum, followed by 1 min of lower intensity cycling. As endurance improves, the duration of exercise is increased to achieve five 2-min intervals of high intensity exercise followed by 2 min of lower intensity cycling. Each training session lasts approximately 30 min. The primary endpoint, change in peak oxygen consumption (Peak VO2) measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing, is assessed at baseline and before surgery. Secondary endpoints include postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and three clinically validated scores: the surgical recovery scale; the postoperative morbidity survey; and the SF-36 quality of life score. The standard deviation for changes in Peak VO2 will be assessed after the first 30 patients and will be used to calculate the required sample size. We want to assess if 14 sessions of HIIT is sufficient to improve Peak VO2 by 2 mL/kg/min in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery and to explore the best clinical endpoint for a subsequent RCT designed to assess if improving Peak VO2 will translate into improving clinical outcomes after surgery. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000587303 . Registered on 26 April 2017.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 151 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 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 10 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 53 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Sports and Recreations 15 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 56 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#7,722,737
of 28,815,917 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,417
of 6,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,600
of 348,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#72
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,815,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 348,412 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 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.