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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Respiratory muscle training for cervical spinal cord injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008507.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J Berlowitz, Jeanette Tamplin |
| Abstract |
Cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) severely comprises respiratory function due to paralysis and impairment of the respiratory muscles. Various types of respiratory muscle training (RMT) to improve respiratory function for people with cervical SCI have been described in the literature. A systematic review of this literature is needed to determine the effectiveness of RMT (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on pulmonary function, dyspnoea, respiratory complications, respiratory muscle strength, and quality of life for people with cervical SCI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 419 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 416 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 79 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 55 | 13% |
| Researcher | 30 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 5% |
| Other | 74 | 18% |
| Unknown | 132 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 112 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 76 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 3% |
| Psychology | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 47 | 11% |
| Unknown | 144 | 34% |
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 26 March 2014.
All research outputs
#7,375,665
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,907
of 12,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,403
of 197,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 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 12,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 197,849 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.