| Title |
Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Older Patients: Current and Emerging Treatment Options
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes Therapy, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13300-013-0039-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Etie Moghissi |
| Abstract |
Elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are a rapidly emerging population that presents unique clinical challenges. This diverse patient group can differ widely in terms of physical and mental status, which can increase their risk of complications including hypoglycemia, falls, and depression. These factors can negatively impact their glycemic control, safety, and quality of life. The risk of hypoglycemic events is elevated among elderly patients with diabetes. In many cases, these events are related to antidiabetic therapy and the pursuit of strict glycemic control. Fear of a hypoglycemic episode, on the part of the patient and/or healthcare provider, is another major barrier to achieving glycemic control. Hypoglycemic events, even in the absence of awareness of the event (asymptomatic), can have negative consequences. To help manage these risks, several national and international organizations have proposed guidelines to address individualized treatment goals for older adults with diabetes. This article reviews current treatment guidelines for setting glycemic targets in elderly patients with T2DM, and discusses the role of emerging treatment options in this patient population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 10% |
| Researcher | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 26 | 21% |
| Unknown | 28 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 38% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 30% |
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 17 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,351,676
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#710
of 1,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,922
of 207,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 207,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.