↓ Skip to main content

Physical training for asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
227 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.
Title
Physical training for asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001116.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin V Carson, Madhu G Chandratilleke, Joanna Picot, Malcolm P Brinn, Adrian J Esterman, Brian J Smith

Abstract

People with asthma may show less tolerance to exercise due to worsening asthma symptoms during exercise or other reasons such as deconditioning as a consequence of inactivity. Some may restrict activities as per medical advice or family influence and this might result in reduced physical fitness. Physical training programs aim to improve physical fitness, neuromuscular coordination and self confidence. Subjectively, many people with asthma report that they are symptomatically better when fit, but results from trials have varied and have been difficult to compare because of different designs and training protocols. Also, as exercise can induce asthma, the safety of exercise programmes needs to be considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 224 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 22%
Student > Bachelor 44 19%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 31 14%
Unknown 46 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 18%
Sports and Recreations 14 6%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Psychology 10 4%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 56 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 03 January 2020.
All research outputs
#482,807
of 15,968,169 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,209
of 11,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,875
of 170,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,968,169 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 170,683 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.