↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Research and Practice

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 18: Frailty and Primary Sarcopenia: A Review
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Frailty and Primary Sarcopenia: A Review
Chapter number 18
Book title
Clinical Research and Practice
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/5584_2017_18
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-965444-7, 978-3-31-965445-4
Authors

Eli Carmeli, Carmeli, Eli

Abstract

Increasing longevity, coupled with rising frailty and sarcopenia of aging, significantly affects function and quality of life of older adults. This review discusses the definition, assessment, and management of frailty and sarcopenia, and examines the relationship between them. Medline, Scopus and Psychoinfo databases were searched using the keywords frailty, sarcopenia, aging, and functional disability. The findings are that frailty and sarcopenia are often assessed clinically with such methods such as DeXA, CT scan, MRI, bioelectrical impedance, or anthropometry. Frailty and sarcopenia differentially affect older adults. Both conditions are characterized by decreased energy reserves and resistance to external and internal stressors, resulting in susceptibility to fatigue, comorbidity, sedentary life style, functional decline, hospitalization, quality of life, and even death. The estimated prevalence of frailty with sarcopenia is relatively low; however, the condition requires early detection and careful management.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Engineering 6 9%
Sports and Recreations 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 23 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,475,586
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,515
of 4,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,283
of 421,196 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#235
of 490 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 421,196 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 490 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.