↓ Skip to main content

Re-evaluation of the cold face test in humans

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2000
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Re-evaluation of the cold face test in humans
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2000
DOI 10.1007/s004210000217
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. K. L. Reyners, R. A. Tio, F. G. Vlutters, G. F. van der Woude, W. D. Reitsma, A. J. Smit

Abstract

The cold face test has been found to be a simple clinical test to elicit the diving reflex, which assesses function of the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve systems at the same time. However, there is no consensus about how the test should be performed without confounding the results by eliciting other reflexes, such as the oculocardiac reflex. The object of this study was to compare and standardize methods for performing the cold face test. Reproducibility of results was assessed. Groups of 6 to 11 subjects participated in each protocol. To act as a cold stimulus a bag filled with iced-water and having a wet surface was used. The effects of allowing breathing to continue, of different masses of the bag, and of avoiding ocular pressure by wearing diving goggles were investigated. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured beat to beat using an automatic blood pressure measuring device. The cold stimulus used in this study was too small to elicit the oculocardiac reflex: wearing diving goggles and different masses of the bag had no influence on the response. The prevention of breathing, however, tended to enhance the fall in heart rate during the cold stress. Reproducibility was highest when the subjects were habituated to the intensity of the stimulus. We recommend practising the test method in advance and performing it in a setting where the subject is unable to breathe.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
New Zealand 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 52 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 21%
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Sports and Recreations 11 20%
Engineering 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,712
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,411
of 38,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 38,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.