↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of tai chi vs. strength training for fall prevention among female cancer survivors: study protocol for the GET FIT trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, December 2012
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 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
Comparison of tai chi vs. strength training for fall prevention among female cancer survivors: study protocol for the GET FIT trial
Published in
BMC Cancer, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2407-12-577
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerri M Winters-Stone, Fuzhong Li, Fay Horak, Shiuh-Wen Luoh, Jill A Bennett, Lillian Nail, Nathan Dieckmann

Abstract

Women with cancer are significantly more likely to fall than women without cancer placing them at higher risk of fall-related fractures, other injuries and disability. Currently, no evidence-based fall prevention strategies exist that specifically target female cancer survivors. The purpose of the GET FIT (Group Exercise Training for Functional Improvement after Treatment) trial is to compare the efficacy of two distinct types of exercise, tai chi versus strength training, to prevent falls in women who have completed treatment for cancer. The specific aims of this study are to: 1) Determine and compare the efficacy of both tai chi training and strength training to reduce falls in older female cancer survivors, 2) Determine the mechanism(s) by which tai chi and strength training each reduces falls and, 3) Determine whether or not the benefits of each intervention last after structured training stops.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 233 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 16%
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 60 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 42 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 42 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 71 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 21 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,419,694
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#198
of 8,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,019
of 277,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#5
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,273 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 277,981 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 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 95% of its contemporaries.