↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The fascial system and exercise intolerance in patients with chronic heart failure: hypothesis of osteopathic treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
The fascial system and exercise intolerance in patients with chronic heart failure: hypothesis of osteopathic treatment
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s94702
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Bordoni, Fabiola Marelli Fabiola

Abstract

Chronic heart failure is a progressive, debilitating disease, resulting in a decline in the quality of life of the patient and incurring very high social economic costs. Chronic heart failure is defined as the inability of the heart to meet the demands of oxygen from the peripheral area. It is a multi-aspect complex disease which impacts negatively on all of the body systems. Presently, there are no texts in the modern literature that associate the symptoms of exercise intolerance of the patient with a dysfunction of the fascial system. In the first part of this article, we will discuss the significance of the disease, its causes, and epidemiology. The second part will explain the pathological adaptations of the myofascial system. The last section will outline a possible osteopathic treatment for patients with heart failure in order to encourage research and improve the general curative approach for the patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Sports and Recreations 6 9%
Psychology 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 May 2019.
All research outputs
#5,546,038
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#199
of 818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,826
of 274,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 274,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.