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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Alcohol consumption as a risk factor for sarcopenia - a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-016-0270-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michal Steffl, Richard W. Bohannon, Miroslav Petr, Eva Kohlikova, Iva Holmerova |
| Abstract |
Sarcopenia, a loss of muscle strength and mass, has serious implications for older adults. Some risk factors for sarcopenia are well established. The role of other factors such as alcohol consumption is less certain. The main aim of this study was to explore the relationship between sarcopenia and alcohol consumption in people over 65 years old. Four electronic databases were searched to identify potentially relevant papers. Demographics and information on sarcopenia and alcohol consumption were extracted from relevant papers. The relationship between sarcopenia and alcohol consumption was described using odds ratios (ORs). Of 214 papers identified as potentially relevant, 13 were ultimately included in the meta-analyses. The papers provided data from 13,155 participants. The OR (95 % CI) for sarcopenia among alcohol drinkers was 0.67 (0.54-0.83) for males, 0.89 (0.73-1.08) for females, and 0.77 (0.67-0.88) for the overall population. The results of this meta-analysis do not support alcohol consumption as a risk factor for sarcopenia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#12,761,847
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,846
of 3,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,911
of 309,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 309,572 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.