↓ Skip to main content

How to Construct, Conduct and Analyze an Exercise Training Study?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
107 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
297 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
How to Construct, Conduct and Analyze an Exercise Training Study?
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Hecksteden, Oliver Faude, Tim Meyer, Lars Donath

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be regarded as gold standard in investigating dose-response and causal relationships in exercise science. Recommendations for exercise training routines and efficacy analyses of certain training regimen require valid data derived from robust RCTs. Moreover, meta-analyses rely on RCTs and both RCTs and meta-analyses are considered the highest level of scientific evidence. Beyond general study design a variety of methodological aspects and notable pitfalls has to be considered. Therefore, exercise training studies should be carefully constructed focusing on the consistency of the whole design "package" from an explicit hypothesis or research question over study design and methodology to data analysis and interpretation. The present scoping review covers all main aspects of planning, conducting, and analyzing exercise based RCTs. We aim to focus on relevant aspects regarding study design, statistical power, training planning and documentation as well as traditional and recent statistical approaches. We intend to provide a comprehensive hands-on paper for conceptualizing future exercise training studies and hope to stimulate and encourage researchers to conduct sound and valid RCTs in the field of exercise training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 107 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 297 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 297 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 16%
Student > Master 48 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 13%
Researcher 23 8%
Other 11 4%
Other 48 16%
Unknown 80 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 88 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Psychology 7 2%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 96 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 05 December 2023.
All research outputs
#708,478
of 26,381,372 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#368
of 15,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,538
of 345,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#19
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,381,372 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,817 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 345,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.