↓ Skip to main content

Bike racing, recreational riding, impact sport and bone health

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Bike racing, recreational riding, impact sport and bone health
Published in
BMC Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael R Carmont

Abstract

Cycling has been shown to confer considerable benefits in terms of health, leading to reductions in death rates principally due to cardiovascular improvements and adaptation. Given the disparity between the benefits of cycling on cardiovascular fitness and previous research finding that cycling may not be beneficial for bone health, Hugo Olmedillas and colleagues performed a systematic review of the literature. They concluded that road cycling does not appear to confer any significant osteogenic benefit. They postulate that the cause of this is that, particularly at a competitive level, riders spend long periods of time in a weight-supported position on the bike. Training programs may be supplemented with impact loading to preserve bone health; however, the small increased risk of soft tissue injury must also be considered. See related commentary http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/168

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 37 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 22%
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Sports and Recreations 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 15 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 25 February 2013.
All research outputs
#1,957,472
of 24,228,883 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,338
of 3,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,790
of 288,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#30
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,228,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 288,468 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 55% of its contemporaries.