The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
A Review of the Accuracy and Utility of Motion Sensors to Measure Physical Activity of Frail, Older Hospitalized Patients.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Aging & Physical Activity, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1123/japa.2014-0190 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ruth McCullagh, Noeleen M Brady, Christina Dillon, N Frances Horgan, Suzanne Timmons |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this review was to examine the utility and accuracy of commercially-available motion sensors to measure step-count and time-spent-upright in frail older hospitalised patients. A database search (CINAHL and PubMed, 2004-2014) and a further hand search of papers' references yielded 24 validation studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Fifteen motion sensors (eight pedometers, six accelerometers and one sensor systems) have been tested in older adults. Only three have been tested in hospital patients; two of which detected postures and postural changes accurately but none estimated step-count accurately. Only one motion sensor remained accurate at speeds typical of frail older hospitalised patients but has yet to be tested in this cohort. Time-spent-upright can be accurately measured in the hospital, but further validation studies are required to determine which, if any, motion sensor can accurately measure step-count. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Professor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 7% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Aging & Physical Activity
#438
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,343
of 392,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Aging & Physical Activity
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 392,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.