| Title |
Is the ADA/EASD algorithm for the management of type 2 diabetes (January 2009) based on evidence or opinion? A critical analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, March 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-010-1702-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. Schernthaner, A. H. Barnett, D. J. Betteridge, R. Carmena, A. Ceriello, B. Charbonnel, M. Hanefeld, R. Lehmann, M. T. Malecki, R. Nesto, V. Pirags, A. Scheen, J. Seufert, A. Sjohölm, A. Tsatsoulis, R. DeFronzo |
| Abstract |
The ADA and the EASD recently published a consensus statement for the medical management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The authors advocate initial treatment with metformin monotherapy and lifestyle modification, followed by addition of basal insulin or a sulfonylurea if glycaemic goals are not met (tier 1 recommendations). All other glucose-lowering therapies are relegated to a secondary (tier 2) status and only recommended for selected clinical settings. In our view, this algorithm does not offer physicians and patients the appropriate selection of options to individualise and optimise care with a view to sustained control of blood glucose and reduction both of diabetes complications and cardiovascular risk. This paper critically assesses the basis of the ADA/EASD algorithm and the resulting tiers of treatment options. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 3 | 4% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 52 | 61% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
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 08 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,439,080
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#2,828
of 5,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,715
of 95,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#17
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 95,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.