| Title |
The Obesity Paradox in Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-013-0446-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mercedes R. Carnethon, Laura J. Rasmussen-Torvik, Latha Palaniappan |
| Abstract |
Overweight or obese adults have demonstrated a survival advantage compared with leaner adults in several population-based samples. This counterintuitive association has been termed the obesity paradox. Evidence for an obesity paradox among persons with diabetes has been less consistent. In the present review, we identified 18 longitudinal studies conducted in cohort studies, patient registries and clinical trial populations that tested the associations between obesity and survival in patients with diabetes. The majority of these studies reported that mortality was lowest in overweight and obese persons, and that leaner adults had the highest relative total and cardiovascular mortality. Some of these studies observed the patterns most strongly in older (age > 65 years) adults. To date, little research has been conducted to identify mechanisms that could explain elevated mortality in leaner adults with diabetes, or to identify strategies for diabetes management or mitigation of elevated mortality risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 19% |
| Researcher | 20 | 19% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#13,400,446
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#496
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,674
of 304,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 304,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.