↓ Skip to main content

Diabetic cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology and clinical features

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
379 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
302 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Diabetic cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology and clinical features
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10741-012-9313-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takayuki Miki, Satoshi Yuda, Hidemichi Kouzu, Tetsuji Miura

Abstract

Since diabetic cardiomyopathy was first reported four decades ago, substantial information on its pathogenesis and clinical features has accumulated. In the heart, diabetes enhances fatty acid metabolism, suppresses glucose oxidation, and modifies intracellular signaling, leading to impairments in multiple steps of excitation-contraction coupling, inefficient energy production, and increased susceptibility to ischemia/reperfusion injury. Loss of normal microvessels and remodeling of the extracellular matrix are also involved in contractile dysfunction of diabetic hearts. Use of sensitive echocardiographic techniques (tissue Doppler imaging and strain rate imaging) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy enables detection of diabetic cardiomyopathy at an early stage, and a combination of the modalities allows differentiation of this type of cardiomyopathy from other organic heart diseases. Circumstantial evidence to date indicates that diabetic cardiomyopathy is a common but frequently unrecognized pathological process in asymptomatic diabetic patients. However, a strategy for prevention or treatment of diabetic cardiomyopathy to improve its prognosis has not yet been established. Here, we review both basic and clinical studies on diabetic cardiomyopathy and summarize problems remaining to be solved for improving management of this type of cardiomyopathy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 302 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 293 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 20%
Student > Master 51 17%
Researcher 38 13%
Student > Postgraduate 34 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 7%
Other 51 17%
Unknown 47 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 45 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 2%
Other 24 8%
Unknown 57 19%
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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,059,753
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#259
of 777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,421
of 175,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 175,239 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 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them