↓ Skip to main content

Clinically Meaningful Change for Physical Performance: Perspectives of the ICFSR Task Force

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Frailty & Aging, January 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 281)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Clinically Meaningful Change for Physical Performance: Perspectives of the ICFSR Task Force
Published in
The Journal of Frailty & Aging, January 2020
DOI 10.14283/jfa.2019.33
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

For clinical studies of sarcopenia and frailty, clinically meaningful outcome measures are needed to monitor disease progression, evaluate efficacy of interventions, and plan clinical trials. Physical performance measures including measures of gait speed and other aspects of mobility and strength have been used in many studies, although a definition of clinically meaningful change in performance has remained unclear. The International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research Task Force (ICFSR-TF), a group of academic and industry scientists investigating frailty and sarcopenia, met in Miami Beach, Florida, USA in February 2019 to explore approaches for establishing clinical meaningfulness in a manner aligned with regulatory authorities. They concluded that clinical meaningful change is contextually dependent, and that both anchor- based and distribution-based methods of quantifying physical function are informative and should be evaluated relative to patient-reported outcomes. In addition, they identified additional research needed to enable setting criteria for clinical meaningful change in trials.

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 41 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 93 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 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 5 5%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 38 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Engineering 4 4%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 46 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 05 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,993,521
of 32,527,721 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Frailty & Aging
#17
of 281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,024
of 511,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Frailty & Aging
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,527,721 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 511,193 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 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.