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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Differences in handgrip strength protocols to identify sarcopenia and frailty - a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-017-0625-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. R. Sousa-Santos, T. F. Amaral |
| Abstract |
Hand grip strength (HGS) is used for the diagnosis of sarcopenia and frailty. Several factors have been shown to influence HGS values during measurement. Therefore, variations in the protocols used to assess HGS, as part of the diagnosis of sarcopenia and frailty, may lead to the identification of different individuals with low HGS, introducing bias. The aim of this systematic review is to gather all the relevant studies that measured HGS to diagnose sarcopenia and frailty and to identify the differences between the protocols used. A systematic review was carried out following the recommendations of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched, until August 16, 2016. The evidence regarding HGS measurement protocols used to diagnose sarcopenia and frailty was summarised and the most recent protocols regarding the procedure were compared. From the described search 4393 articles were identified. Seventy-two studies were included in this systematic review, in which 37 referred to sarcopenia articles, 33 to frailty and two evaluated both conditions. Most studies presented limited information regarding the protocols used. The majority of the studies included did not describe a complete procedure of HGS measurement. The high heterogeneity between the protocols used, in sarcopenia and frailty studies, create an enormous difficulty in drawing comparative conclusions among them. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 20% |
| Mexico | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 387 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 387 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 54 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 10% |
| Researcher | 35 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 33 | 9% |
| Other | 24 | 6% |
| Other | 66 | 17% |
| Unknown | 135 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 98 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 22 | 6% |
| Engineering | 11 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 38 | 10% |
| Unknown | 159 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 June 2023.
All research outputs
#13,657,935
of 24,363,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,019
of 3,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,919
of 329,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#41
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,363,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.