The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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.
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 |
Immunomodulatory effects of two different physical therapy modalities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Physical Therapy Science, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1589/jpts.29.1527 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sherin Hassan M. Mehani |
| Abstract |
[Purpose] Counteracting the systemic cytokine release and its inflammatory effects by improving respiratory muscle strength and controlling lung inflammation may be important for improving immune system in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, So the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of low level laser therapy and inspiratory muscle training on interleukin-6 (IL-6) as a marker of inflammation and CD4+/CD8+ ratio as a marker for T Lymphocytes in these patients. [Subjects and Methods] Forty male patients with stable COPD participated in the study, their ages ranged between 55-65 years. They were randomly divided into group (A) who received inspiratory muscle training and group (B) who received low level laser (LLL) acupuncture stimulation for about 8 week. [Results] There was a reduction in the concentration of plasma IL-6 associated with an increase in CD4+/CD8+ ratio in both groups, but laser was superior to inspiratory muscle training. IL-6 and CD4+/CD8+ were negatively correlated. [Conclusion] Both inspiratory muscle training and low level laser therapy are effective physical therapy modalities in promoting immune disturbances. The results also supported the superior role of LLLT over IMT in managing immune disturbances. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 29% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,338,190
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#477
of 1,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,787
of 323,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#21
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 323,373 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.