| Title |
Electromagnetic field versus circuit weight training on bone mineral density in elderly women
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s78485 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hany Farid Eid Morsy Elsisi, Gihan Samir Mohamed Mousa, Mohamed Taher Mahmoud ELdesoky |
| Abstract |
Osteoporosis is a common skeletal disorder with costly complications and a global health problem and one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Magnetic field therapy and physical activity have been proven as beneficial interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the response of bone mineral content and bone mineral density (BMD) in elderly women to either low-frequency low-intensity pulsed magnetic field (LFLIPMF) or circuit weight training (CWT) on short-run basis (after 12 weeks). Thirty elderly women, aged 60-70 years, were randomly assigned into two groups (magnetic field and CWT) (n=15 each group). The session was performed three times per week for magnetic field and CWT groups, for 12 weeks. BMD and bone mineral content of lumbar spine (L2-L4) and femoral neck, trochanter, and Ward's triangle were evaluated before and after 12 weeks of treatment. Both magnetic field and CWT for 12 weeks in elderly women seem to yield beneficial and statistically significant increasing effect on BMD and bone mineral content (P<0.05). But magnetic field seems to have more beneficially and statistically significant effect than does CWT. It is possible to conclude that LFLIPMF and CWT programs are effective modalities in increasing BMD but LFLIPMF is more effective in elderly women. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 132 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 5% |
| Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 43 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 18 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 49 | 37% |
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 27 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,714,565
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#727
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,111
of 270,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th 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 62% 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 270,996 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.