↓ Skip to main content

Eccentric versus traditional resistance exercise for older adult fallers in the community: a randomized trial within a multi-component fall reduction program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
314 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
Eccentric versus traditional resistance exercise for older adult fallers in the community: a randomized trial within a multi-component fall reduction program
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0539-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul LaStayo, Robin Marcus, Leland Dibble, Bob Wong, Ginette Pepper

Abstract

Addressing muscle deficits within a multi-component exercise fall reduction program is a priority, especially for the highest risk older adults, i.e., those who have fallen previously. Eccentric resistance exercise with its high-force producing potential, at a low energetic cost, may be ideally-suited to address muscle impairments in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of resistance exercise via negative, eccentrically-induced, work (RENEW) versus traditional (TRAD) resistance exercise on mobility, balance confidence, muscle power and cross sectional area, as well as the number of days high fall risk older adults survived without a fall event over a 1 year period. Randomized, two group, four time point (over 1 year) clinical trial testing RENEW versus TRAD as part of a 3 month multi-component exercise fall reduction program (MCEFRP). Primary outcomes of mobility, balance confidence, muscle power output and cross sectional area were analyzed using mixed effects modeling. The secondary outcomes of days to fall and days to near-fall were analyzed using survival analysis. The MCEFRP did have an effect on fall risk factors considered reversible with exercise interventions though there was no differential effect of RENEW versus TRAD (p = 0.896) on mobility, balance confidence, muscle power and cross sectional area. There were also no group differences in the number of days survived without a fall (p = 0.565) or near-fall (p = 0.678). Despite 100% of participants having at least one fall in the year prior to the MCEFRP, however, after 3 months of exercise and 9 months of follow-up <50% had experienced a fall or near fall. There were no differential effects of RENEW or TRAD as components of a MCEFRP on the primary or secondary outcomes. The two modes of resistance exercise had identical effects on fall risk and fall-free survival. NCT01080196 ; March 2, 2010 (retrospectively registered).

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 314 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 314 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 14%
Student > Bachelor 45 14%
Researcher 24 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 5%
Other 44 14%
Unknown 120 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 65 21%
Sports and Recreations 46 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 7%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 29 9%
Unknown 133 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 03 November 2020.
All research outputs
#791,074
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#100
of 3,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,687
of 283,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#6
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 283,535 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 92% of its contemporaries.