↓ Skip to main content

The remote exercise monitoring trial for exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (REMOTE-CR): a randomised controlled trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
282 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
The remote exercise monitoring trial for exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (REMOTE-CR): a randomised controlled trial protocol
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ralph Maddison, Jonathan C Rawstorn, Anna Rolleston, Robyn Whittaker, Ralph Stewart, Jocelyne Benatar, Ian Warren, Yannan Jiang, Nicholas Gant

Abstract

Exercise is an essential component of contemporary cardiac rehabilitation programs for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Despite the benefits associated with regular exercise, adherence with supervised exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation remains low. Increasingly powerful mobile technologies, such as smartphones and wireless physiological sensors, may extend the capability of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation by enabling real-time exercise monitoring for those with coronary heart disease. This study compares the effectiveness of technology-assisted, home-based, remote monitored exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (REMOTE) to standard supervised exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in New Zealand adults with a diagnosis of coronary heart disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 277 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 18%
Student > Master 48 17%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 7%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 50 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 19%
Psychology 21 7%
Sports and Recreations 14 5%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 65 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,036,818
of 12,372,633 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,297
of 8,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,609
of 275,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#397
of 1,051 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,633 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 275,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,051 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.