↓ Skip to main content

From Protecting the Heart to Improving Athletic Performance – the Benefits of Local and Remote Ischaemic Preconditioning

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, October 2015
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Readers on

mendeley
152 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
From Protecting the Heart to Improving Athletic Performance – the Benefits of Local and Remote Ischaemic Preconditioning
Published in
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10557-015-6621-6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning (RIPC) is a non-invasive cardioprotective intervention that involves brief cycles of limb ischemia and reperfusion. This is typically delivered by inflating and deflating a blood pressure cuff on one or more limb(s) for several cycles, each inflation-deflation being 3-5 min in duration. RIPC has shown potential for protecting the heart and other organs from injury due to lethal ischemia and reperfusion injury, in a variety of clinical settings. The mechanisms underlying RIPC are under intense investigation but are just beginning to be deciphered. Emerging evidence suggests that RIPC has the potential to improve exercise performance, via both local and remote mechanisms. This review discusses the clinical studies that have investigated the role of RIPC in cardioprotection as well as those studying its applicability in improving athletic performance, while examining the potential mechanisms involved.

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 19 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 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Russia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 146 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 10 7%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 38 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 49 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 43 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,825,908
of 30,013,658 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy
#81
of 950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,717
of 299,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,013,658 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 299,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
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 all of them