| Title |
Metabolic Surgery for Type 2 Diabetes: Appraisal of Clinical Evidence and Review of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials Comparing Surgery with Medical Therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Atherosclerosis Reports, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11883-013-0376-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Harold E. Lebovitz |
| Abstract |
Bariatric surgical procedures were originally developed to treat morbid obesity where their benefits certainly outweigh their potential side effects. Although they are very beneficial in improving metabolic control in type 2 diabetes, there are many medical treatments that are also effective. The role of bariatric surgery as primary therapy for type 2 diabetes depends on whether the benefit exceeds the surgical and nutritional complications, which are significant. The ultimate role for bariatric surgery in treating type 2 diabetes can only be determined by large, long-term randomized clinical trials which compare clinical outcomes of bariatric surgery with those of current intensive medical treatment. The four reported small, mostly 1-year trials have shown superior glycemic control by surgery as compared with medical treatment, but at the expense of significant surgical complications and unknown nutritional liability. They show that future trials will have to be much larger and last for at least 5-10 years. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 2 | 40% |
| United States | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 42% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 October 2013.
All research outputs
#13,161,766
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Current Atherosclerosis Reports
#493
of 762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,457
of 212,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Atherosclerosis Reports
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 212,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.