↓ Skip to main content

Hormonal aspects of overtraining syndrome: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 472)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
84 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 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
Hormonal aspects of overtraining syndrome: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13102-017-0079-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flavio A. Cadegiani, Claudio E. Kater

Abstract

Overtraining syndrome (OTS), functional (FOR) and non-functional overreaching (NFOR) are conditions diagnosed in athletes with decreased performance and fatigue, triggered by metabolic, immune, hormonal and other dysfunctions and resulted from an imbalance between training stress and proper recovery. Despite previous descriptions, there is a lack of a review that discloses all hormonal findings in OTS/FOR/NFOR. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether and which roles hormones play in OTS/FOR/NFOR. A systematic search up to June 15(th), 2017 was performed in the PUBMED, MEDLINE and Cochrane databases following PRISMA protocol, with the expressions: (1)overtraining, (2)overreaching, (3)overtrained, (4)overreached, or (5)underperformance, and (plus) (a)hormone, (b)hormonal, (c)endocrine, (d)adrenal, (e)cortisol, (f)GH, (g)ACTH, (h)testosterone, (i)IGF-1, (j)TSH, (k)T4, (l)T3, (m)LH, (n)FSH, (o)prolactin, (p) IGFBP-3 and related articles. A total of 38 studies were selected. Basal levels of hormones were mostly normal in athletes with OTS/FOR/NFOR compared with healthy athletes. Distinctly, stimulation tests, mainly performed in maximal exercise conditions, showed blunted GH and ACTH responses in OTS/FOR/NFOR athletes, whereas cortisol and plasma catecholamines showed conflicting findings and the other hormones responded normally. Basal hormone levels are not good predictor but blunted ACTH and GH responses to stimulation tests may be good predictors of OTS/FOR/NFOR.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 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 267 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 267 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 53 20%
Student > Master 42 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Other 46 17%
Unknown 54 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 90 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 70 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 155. 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 29 April 2022.
All research outputs
#206,830
of 22,056,933 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#5
of 472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,147
of 290,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,056,933 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 290,570 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 98% 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