↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Optimal management of sarcopenia

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2010
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
418 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Optimal management of sarcopenia
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, August 2010
DOI 10.2147/cia.s11473
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise A Burton, Deepa Sumukadas

Abstract

Sarcopenia is the progressive generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass, strength, and function which occurs as a consequence of aging. With a growing older population, there has been great interest in developing approaches to counteract the effects of sarcopenia, and thereby reduce the age-related decline and disability. This paper reviews (1) the mechanisms of sarcopenia, (2) the diagnosis of sarcopenia, and (3) the potential interventions for sarcopenia. Multiple factors appear to be involved in the development of sarcopenia including the loss of muscle mass and muscle fibers, increased inflammation, altered hormonal levels, poor nutritional status, and altered renin-angiotensin system. The lack of diagnostic criteria to identify patients with sarcopenia hinders potential management options. To date, pharmacological interventions have shown limited efficacy in counteracting the effects of sarcopenia. Recent evidence has shown benefits with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; however, further randomized controlled trials are required. Resistance training remains the most effective intervention for sarcopenia; however, older people maybe unable or unwilling to embark on strenuous exercise training programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 418 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 406 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 69 17%
Student > Master 66 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 11%
Student > Postgraduate 36 9%
Researcher 32 8%
Other 78 19%
Unknown 90 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 126 30%
Sports and Recreations 50 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 4%
Other 46 11%
Unknown 104 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 07 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,330,096
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#252
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,429
of 103,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 103,881 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 11 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 90% of its contemporaries.