↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Effects of free leucine supplementation and resistance training on muscle strength and functional status in older adults: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
Title
Effects of free leucine supplementation and resistance training on muscle strength and functional status in older adults: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s75271
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Trabal, Maria Forga, Pere Leyes, Ferran Torres, Jordi Rubio, Esther Prieto, Andreu Farran-Codina

Abstract

To assess the effect of free leucine supplementation combined with resistance training versus resistance training only on muscle strength and functional status in older adults. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study with two intervention groups. Thirty older adults were randomly assigned to receive either 10 g leucine/day (leucine group [LG], n=15) or a placebo (control group [CG], n=15), plus resistance training over a 12-week period. Maximal overcoming isometric leg strength, functional status, nutritional status, body composition, health-related quality of life, depression, and dietary intake were assessed at 4 and 12 weeks. Missing data at 12 weeks were handled using mixed models for repeated measurements for data imputation. Twenty-four subjects completed the 4-week assessment and eleven completed the 12-week intervention. Clinically significant gains were found in isometric leg strength at both assessment time points. Analysis of the effect size also showed how participants in LG outperformed those in CG for chair stands and the timed up and go test. No significant changes were observed for the rest of the outcomes. Our combined analysis showed moderate changes in isometric leg muscle strength and certain components of functional status. The magnitude of changes found on these outcomes should be qualified as a positive effect of the concomitant intervention.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 245 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Bachelor 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 5%
Other 42 17%
Unknown 69 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 45 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 75 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 April 2020.
All research outputs
#8,261,140
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#794
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,950
of 279,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 279,165 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.