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 |
Development of new measurement system of thoracic excursion with biofeedback: reliability and validity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-10-45 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yukiko Nishigaki, Hiroko Mizuguchi, Eriko Takeda, Tomokazu Koike, Takeshi Ando, Kazuya Kawamura, Takuro Shimbo, Hidetoshi Ishikawa, Masashi Fujimoto, Ikuko Saotome, Reiko Odo, Kazuko Omoda, Shohei Yamashita, Tomoko Yamada, Toshihito Omi, Yuya Matsushita, Manami Takeda, Sawako Sekiguchi, Saki Tanaka, Masakatsu Fujie, Haruhi Inokuchi, Junko Fujitani |
| Abstract |
Respiratory rehabilitation reduces breathlessness from patient with respiratory dysfunction. Chest expansion score, which represents the circumference magnitude of the thoracic cage, is used for a target when treating patients with respiratory disease. However, it is often difficult for patients to understand the changes in the respiratory status and be motivated for therapy continuously. We developed a new measurement system with biofeedback named BREATH which shows chest expansion scores in real time. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the novel system in advance of clinical application. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 20% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#13,384,762
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#643
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,845
of 195,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 195,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.