↓ Skip to main content

The physiological effects of hypobaric hypoxia versus normobaric hypoxia: a systematic review of crossover trials

Overview of attention for article published in Extreme Physiology & Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 107)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
141 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 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 physiological effects of hypobaric hypoxia versus normobaric hypoxia: a systematic review of crossover trials
Published in
Extreme Physiology & Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13728-014-0021-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonny Coppel, Philip Hennis, Edward Gilbert-Kawai, Michael PW Grocott

Abstract

Much hypoxia research has been carried out at high altitude in a hypobaric hypoxia (HH) environment. Many research teams seek to replicate high-altitude conditions at lower altitudes in either hypobaric hypoxic conditions or normobaric hypoxic (NH) laboratories. Implicit in this approach is the assumption that the only relevant condition that differs between these settings is the partial pressure of oxygen (PO2), which is commonly presumed to be the principal physiological stimulus to adaptation at high altitude. This systematic review is the first to present an overview of the current available literature regarding crossover studies relating to the different effects of HH and NH on human physiology. After applying our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Several studies reported a number of variables (e.g. minute ventilation and NO levels) that were different between the two conditions, lending support to the notion that true physiological difference is indeed present. However, the presence of confounding factors such as time spent in hypoxia, temperature, and humidity, and the limited statistical power due to small sample sizes, limit the conclusions that can be drawn from these findings. Standardisation of the study methods and reporting may aid interpretation of future studies and thereby improve the quality of data in this area. This is important to improve the quality of data that is used for improving the understanding of hypoxia tolerance, both at altitude and in the clinical setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 281 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 58 20%
Student > Master 42 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 13%
Researcher 29 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 50 17%
Unknown 54 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 28%
Sports and Recreations 62 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 61 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 20 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,064,396
of 23,485,296 outputs
Outputs from Extreme Physiology & Medicine
#31
of 107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,992
of 256,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Extreme Physiology & Medicine
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,296 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 107 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 256,796 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.