↓ Skip to main content

The role of exercise in modifying outcomes for people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, June 2013
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
296 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
The role of exercise in modifying outcomes for people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized trial
Published in
BMC Neurology, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-13-69
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy E Mayo, Mark Bayley, Pierre Duquette, Yves Lapierre, Ross Anderson, Susan Bartlett

Abstract

Despite the commonly known benefits of exercise and physical activity evidence shows that persons Multiple Sclerosis (MS) are relatively inactive yet physical activity may be even more important in a population facing functional deterioration. No exercise is effective if it is not done and people with MS face unique barriers to exercise engagement which need to be overcome. We have developed and pilot tested a Multiple Sclerosis Tailored Exercise Program (MSTEP) and it is ready to be tested against general guidelines for superiority and ultimately for its impact on MS relevant outcomes. The primary research question is to what extent does an MS Tailored Exercise Program (MSTEP) result in greater improvements in exercise capacity and related outcomes over a one year period in comparison to a program based on general guidelines for exercise among people with MS who are sedentary and wish to engage in exercise as part of MS self-management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 290 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 18%
Student > Master 49 17%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 56 19%
Unknown 58 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 16%
Sports and Recreations 35 12%
Psychology 19 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 70 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,103,508
of 21,347,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#520
of 2,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,807
of 173,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. 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 173,991 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them