The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Exercise to improve functional outcomes in persons with osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Osteoporosis International, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00198-017-4339-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Varahra, I. B. Rodrigues, J. C. MacDermid, D. Bryant, T. Birmingham |
| Abstract |
Osteoporosis affects many aspects of daily life. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of exercise interventions on functional outcomes in persons with osteoporosis, in comparison with controls. Four databases were searched and yielded 1587 citations. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, rated risk of bias, appraised methodological quality of studies, and resolved discordance by consensus. A total of 28 studies examining 2113 participants met inclusion criteria; 25 studies were suitable for meta-analyses. Four categories of exercise were identified using the ProFaNE taxonomy. After removing studies with high risk of bias and sorting them into intervention sub-types, we were able to sufficiently reduce the heterogeneity. The standardized mean difference (SMD) favored multicomponent exercise for mobility (- 0.56, 95% CI [- 0.81, - 0.32], p = 0.06, I2 = 51%); balance (0.50, 95% CI [0.27, 0.74], p = 0.28, I2 = 21%); and self-reported measures of functioning (- 0.69, 95% CI [- 1.04, - 0.34], p = 0.02, I2 = 61%). Trials were judged at low or unclear risk of selection bias, indicating inadequate reporting and at high risk of performance bias due to lack of participant blinding. The mean methodological quality rating of the studies was 63.5% indicating moderate quality. A multicomponent exercise program of high-speed training combined with simulated functional tasks is promising to enhance functional outcomes. Due to substantial clinical heterogeneity of the target groups and specific demands of exercise modes, it is unclear which exercise program is optimal. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 50% |
| Brazil | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 181 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 8% |
| Researcher | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 18% |
| Unknown | 53 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 29 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Psychology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 62 | 34% |
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 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,009,737
of 26,329,759 outputs
Outputs from Osteoporosis International
#1,965
of 3,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,005
of 455,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Osteoporosis International
#28
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,329,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,836 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 455,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.