↓ Skip to main content

Changes in the endurance shuttle walk test in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure after pulmonary rehabilitation: the minimal important difference obtained with anchor- and distribution-base…

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, February 2015
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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Changes in the endurance shuttle walk test in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure after pulmonary rehabilitation: the minimal important difference obtained with anchor- and distribution-based method
Published in
Respiratory Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12931-015-0182-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wytske A Altenburg, Marieke L Duiverman, Nick HT ten Hacken, Huib AM Kerstjens, Mathieu HG de Greef, Peter J Wijkstra, Johan B Wempe

Abstract

Although the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) has proven to be responsive to change in exercise capacity after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for COPD, the minimally important difference (MID) has not yet been established. We aimed to establish the MID of the ESWT in patients with severe COPD and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure following PR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 27 20%
Unknown 39 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 47 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 March 2015.
All research outputs
#5,612,714
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#659
of 2,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,039
of 256,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#12
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 256,420 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 74% of its contemporaries.