The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 |
Effect of kinesio taping on the isokinetic muscle function in football athletes with a knee injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Physical Therapy Science, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1589/jpts.28.218 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
SoonKwon Hong, JeMyung Shim, SungJoong Kim, Seung Namkoong, HyoLyun Roh |
| Abstract |
[Purpose] The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in isokinetic muscle function in football athletes with a knee injury with and without kinesio taping. [Subjects] The subjects for this study were 10 football athletes (males) with a knee injury. [Methods] Measurements were performed by using Cybex dynamometer under uniform motion before and after the application of kinesio tape to the quadriceps and hamstring muscle. Maximal concentric knee extension and flexion at three angular velocities (60°/s, 120°/s, and 180°/s) were measured. [Results] A significant difference was found in peak torque and total work of the flexion at 120°/s and 180°/s, as well as in the average power of extension at 180°/s. [Conclusion] Though it is not the main therapy for muscle function in football athletes with injury, kinesio taping was an effective adjunct therapy. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 26% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 21% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 11% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#863
of 1,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,587
of 405,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#57
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 405,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.