↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Manual evaluation of the diaphragm muscle

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
35 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
295 Mendeley
Title
Manual evaluation of the diaphragm muscle
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s111634
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Bordoni, F Marelli, B Morabito, B Sacconi

Abstract

The respiratory diaphragm is the most important muscle for breathing. It contributes to various processes such as expectoration, vomiting, swallowing, urination, and defecation. It facilitates the venous and lymphatic return and helps viscera located above and below the diaphragm to work properly. Its activity is fundamental in the maintenance of posture and body position changes. It can affect the pain perception and emotional state. Many authors reported on diaphragmatic training by using special instruments, whereas only a few studies focused on manual therapy approaches. To the knowledge of the authors, the existing scientific literature does not exhaustively examines the manual evaluation of the diaphragm in its different portions. A complete evaluation of the diaphragm is mandatory for several professional subjects, such as physiotherapists, osteopaths, and chiropractors not only to elaborate a treatment strategy but also to obtain information on the validity of the training performed on the patient. This article aims to describe a strategy of manual evaluation of the diaphragm, with particular attention to anatomical fundamentals, in order to stimulate further research on this less explored field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 295 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 18%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 7%
Researcher 19 6%
Student > Postgraduate 19 6%
Other 53 18%
Unknown 89 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 78 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 78 26%
Sports and Recreations 14 5%
Psychology 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 100 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 10 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,828,980
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#136
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,738
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#7
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 381,036 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 93% of its contemporaries.