| Title |
Comparison of efficacy between incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-10-152 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kaustubh Nisal, Ram Kela, Kamlesh Khunti, Melanie J Davies |
| Abstract |
Type 2 diabetes mellitus is widely prevalent and is often coexistent with obesity. Many of the available treatment options have side effects such as weight gain which often affect patient's willingness to continue the treatment. Effective weight loss, lack of significant hypoglycaemia, and favourable cardiometabolic profile make Incretin based therapies an attractive treatment option for type 2 diabetes. Incretin based therapies are available as either incretin mimetics (also called GLP-1 agonists) or incretin enhancers (DPP-4 inhibitors). Although agents in both these classes of incretin based therapy are effective through a common GLP-1 pathway, there are many differences amongst them including the route of administration, frequency of administration, effects on body weight, extent of glycaemic improvement. There are several trials evaluating these individual incretin based agents either as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic agents, however very few have looked into direct comparison amongst the agents in these two classes. This review is aimed to look at important mechanistic differences between incretin mimetics and enhancers through direct comparison trials and impact of these differences on biochemical, metabolic and patient satisfaction parameters. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| Brazil | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 3 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 53% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 July 2013.
All research outputs
#3,302,989
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,891
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,335
of 280,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#40
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 280,749 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.