↓ Skip to main content

A randomized clinical trial to assess the influence of a three months training program (Gym-based individualized vs. Calisthenics-based non-invidualized) in COPD-patients

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, March 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
208 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
A randomized clinical trial to assess the influence of a three months training program (Gym-based individualized vs. Calisthenics-based non-invidualized) in COPD-patients
Published in
Respiratory Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1465-9921-15-36
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timm Greulich, Katharina Kehr, Christoph Nell, Janine Koepke, Daniel Haid, Ulrich Koehler, Kay Koehler, Silke Filipovic, Klaus Kenn, Claus Vogelmeier, Andreas-Rembert Koczulla

Abstract

Pulmonary rehabilitation has been demonstrated to improve exercise capacity, dyspnoea, quality of life and to reduce the adverse effects of acute exacerbations. Current guidelines recommend exercise training in patients with mild to very severe disease. However, there is insufficient data comparing the efficacy of different training approaches and intensities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 202 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 5%
Other 9 4%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 66 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 15%
Sports and Recreations 18 9%
Unspecified 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 22 11%
Unknown 73 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 08 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,971,846
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#181
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,437
of 237,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#4
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 237,681 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.