↓ Skip to main content

Strength gain through eccentric isotonic training without changes in clinical signs or blood markers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2013
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Strength gain through eccentric isotonic training without changes in clinical signs or blood markers
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, November 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-14-328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thâmara Alves, Flávia A Guarnier, Fernanda AS Campoy, Mariana O Gois, Maíra C Albuquerque, Patrícia M Seraphim, Jayme Junior Netto, Luiz Carlos Marques Vanderlei, Carlos R Padovani, Rubens Cecchini, Carlos Marcelo Pastre

Abstract

Localized exercises are widely used in rehabilitation processes. The predominant options are exercises with an emphasis on either concentric or eccentric contractions. Eccentric exercises promote greater strength gains compared to classical concentric stimuli, but can cause muscle damage. The aim of present study was to compare strength training composed of 10 sessions with progressive loads between groups with a predominance of concentric versus eccentric contraction through an analysis of isotonic strength, pressure pain threshold, creatine kinase, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and cortisol.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 23%
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Researcher 8 12%
Professor 5 8%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 14 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 14 22%

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 24 December 2021.
All research outputs
#5,251,845
of 21,399,109 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#964
of 3,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,399
of 303,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#61
of 347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,399,109 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 303,186 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 347 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.