| Title |
Diabetes, bone and glucose-lowering agents: clinical outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-017-4283-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ann V. Schwartz |
| Abstract |
Older adults with diabetes are at higher risk of fracture and of complications resulting from a fracture. Hence, fracture risk reduction is an important goal in diabetes management. This review is one of a pair discussing the relationship between diabetes, bone and glucose-lowering agents; an accompanying review is provided in this issue of Diabetologia by Beata Lecka-Czernik (DOI 10.1007/s00125-017-4269-4 ). Specifically, this review discusses the challenges of accurate fracture risk assessment in diabetes. Standard tools for risk assessment can be used to predict fracture but clinicians need to be aware of the tendency for the bone mineral density T-score and the fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX) to underestimate risk in those with diabetes. Diabetes duration, complications and poor glycaemic control are useful clinical markers of increased fracture risk. Glucose-lowering agents may also affect fracture risk, independent of their effects on glycaemic control, as seen with the negative skeletal effects of the thiazolidinediones; in this review, the potential effects of glucose-lowering medications on fracture risk are discussed. Finally, the current understanding of effective fracture prevention in older adults with diabetes is reviewed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 Kingdom | 4 | 16% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Serbia | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
| Scientists | 2 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 28% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 34 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 12 July 2017.
All research outputs
#2,149,657
of 24,041,016 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#1,132
of 5,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,037
of 313,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#34
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,041,016 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 313,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 57% of its contemporaries.