↓ Skip to main content

Why are some people more fit than others? Correlates and determinants of cardiorespiratory fitness in adults: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Why are some people more fit than others? Correlates and determinants of cardiorespiratory fitness in adults: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0497-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nita Perumal, Gert B.M. Mensink, Thomas Keil, Jonas David Finger

Abstract

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a physical condition that is now well established as a predictor of numerous adverse health outcomes, independent of physical activity levels. In order to be able to improve CRF at the population level and to develop effective interventions and public health programmes, it is important to understand why some people are more fit than others. Therefore, the primary aim of the systematic review described in this protocol is to examine individual and interpersonal factors that are correlated with or determine CRF among adults. The review will focus on quantitative studies that investigate any personal and interpersonal correlates and/or determinants of objectively measured CRF among the general, non-symptomatic, non-institutionalized adult population (aged 18-65 years) worldwide. The databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library will be searched to identify all relevant published journal articles, and Google Scholar and Scopus will be searched for grey literature. Studies where CRF is not an outcome variable and experimental studies where participants specifically receive a fitness intervention that increases CRF will be excluded. For each study, data extracted will include, among other variables, study characteristics, methodology for selecting participants into the study as well as the participants' demographic characteristics, types of correlates and determinants of CRF investigated and their measurement methods, the objective measure of CRF used and its measurement method and validity, and the main reported results on the association between the correlates or determinants and CRF. In addition, observational studies will be assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias using a customized version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Experimental studies will be assessed using the 27-item Downs and Black "Checklist for Measuring Study Quality". The final results will be presented as a narrative synthesis of the main findings of all included studies. By consolidating and synthesizing the current research on possible individual and interpersonal correlates and determinants of CRF among adults worldwide, we aim to aid future public health actions, as well as identify gaps in our full understanding of what influences CRF. PROSPERO CRD42017055456 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Professor 5 6%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Sports and Recreations 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Psychology 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 31 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,607,615
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,792
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,137
of 313,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#38
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 313,891 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.