↓ Skip to main content

Kinetic and kinematic differences between deadlifts and goodmornings

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Kinetic and kinematic differences between deadlifts and goodmornings
Published in
Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology, December 2013
DOI 10.1186/2052-1847-5-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Schellenberg, Julia Lindorfer, Renate List, William R Taylor, Silvio Lorenzetti

Abstract

In order to improve training performance, as well as avoid overloading during prevention and rehabilitation exercises in patients, the aim of this study was to understand the biomechanical differences in the knee, hip and the back between the exercises "Goodmornings" (GMs) and "Deadlifts" (DLs).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 94 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 24%
Student > Master 23 23%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 45 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 14 14%

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 15 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,427,245
of 13,845,249 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology
#18
of 62 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,052
of 253,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,845,249 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 62 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 253,892 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 60% of its contemporaries.