↓ Skip to main content

Muscular and functional effects of partitioning exercising muscle mass in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 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
Muscular and functional effects of partitioning exercising muscle mass in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0698-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrè Nyberg, Didier Saey, Mickaël Martin, François Maltais

Abstract

Low-load, high-repetitive single-limb resistance training may increase limb muscle function and functional exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) while minimizing the occurrence of limiting exertional symptoms. Whether high-repetitive single-limb resistance training would perform better than high-repetitive two-limb resistance training is unknown. In addition, the mechanisms underlying possible benefits of high-repetitive resistance training has not been investigated. The aims of this study are to compare single versus two-limb high-repetitive resistance training in patients with COPD and to investigate mechanisms of action of these training modalities. This trial is a prospective, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial. The participants are patients with stable severe to very severe COPD who are older than 40 years of age and healthy controls. The intervention is single-limb, high-repetitive, resistance training with elastic bands, three times/week for 8 weeks. The control is two-limb high-repetitive resistance training with elastic bands, three times/week for 8 weeks. The primary outcomes is change in the 6-min walking distance after 8 weeks of single-limb or two-limb high-repetitive resistance training. The secondary outcomes are changes in limb muscle strength and endurance capacity, key protein involved in quadriceps anabolic/catabolic signalization, fiber-type distribution and capillarization, subjective dyspnea and muscle fatigue, muscle oxygenation, cardiorespiratory demand and health-related quality-of-life after 8 weeks of single-limb or two-limb high-repetitive resistance training. The acute effects of single-limb versus two-limb high-repetitive resistance training on contractile fatigue, exercise stimulus (the product of number of repetition and load), subjective dyspnea and muscle fatigue, muscle oxygenation, and cardiorespiratory demand during upper and lower limb exercises will also be investigated in patients with COPD and healthy controls. Randomization will be performed using a random number generator by a person independent of the recruitment process, using 1:1 allocation to the intervention and the control group using random block sizes. Blinding: All outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. The results of this project will provide important information to help developing and implementing customized exercise training programs for patients with COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02283580 Registration date: 4 November 2014. First participant randomized: 10 November 2014.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 187 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Researcher 11 6%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 65 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 17%
Sports and Recreations 24 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 74 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 April 2015.
All research outputs
#704,114
of 5,033,220 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#311
of 1,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,446
of 157,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#22
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,033,220 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 157,121 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.