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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How do we define and measure sarcopenia? Protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0712-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paulo Roberto Carvalho do Nascimento, Stéphane Poitras, Martin Bilodeau |
| Abstract |
The loss of muscle mass is a natural aging consequence. A reduction of muscle mass that surpasses the physiological rate is considered the key factor responsible for the development of a geriatric syndrome called sarcopenia. However, a new understanding of the importance of muscle quality over quantity is rising; as a result, different definitions for sarcopenia has been used. Due to the negative impact on elder's health and quality of life, the number of research investigating the causes, prevalence, and management of sarcopenia is increasing, although a consensus on sarcopenia definition is still missing. This systematic review will assess observational studies reporting the presence of sarcopenia aiming to verify how sarcopenia is defined, the diagnosis criteria, and the tools used for assessment. In addition, we will investigate the influence of the definition and diagnostic tools on the prevalence rate. Keywords related to the condition, population, and type of study will be combined to build a search strategy for each of the following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers will analyze the retrieved papers for eligibility and the methodological quality of eligible studies. The definition of sarcopenia and diagnostic tools used in each study and the prevalence estimates will be extracted. Descriptive statistics will be used to report the definitions of sarcopenia, diagnostic tools, and whether these influence or not, the prevalence rates. Sarcopenia is receiving greater attention in geriatrics research in recent years. Therefore, it is important to investigate how this condition is defined in the literature and whether these definitions can interfere with the reported estimates devoting more efforts on the topic. The results of this study can help to determine the most used definitions of sarcopenia reported in the literature, its strengths and limitations, and open a discussion about a need for a more valid, easy, and suitable one. PROSPERO CRD42015020832. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 111 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 21% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 41 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,811,307
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#993
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,448
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#31
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 330,033 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.