| Title |
Risk of Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Is Reduced in Users of Alendronate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Calcified Tissue International, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00223-011-9515-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Vestergaard |
| Abstract |
To study the risk of developing type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes among users of drugs against osteoporosis compared to nonusers. Nationwide cohort study in Denmark with all users of drugs against osteoporosis (n = 103,562) as exposed and three age- and sex-matched nondiabetic control subjects (n = 310,683) randomly selected from the background population. The main outcome variable was an incident diagnosis of diabetes after the baseline date. Among users of alendronate, etidronate, and raloxifene, no change in the risk of T1D was observed. However, the risk of developing T2D was reduced with all three drugs (alendronate: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.85, etidronate: HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86, raloxifene: HR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.87). For alendronate, a dose-dependent risk reduction was observed (≥1 defined daily dose (DDD) per day: HR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41, P for trend <0.01), while this was not the case for etidronate and raloxifene. Antiresorptive drugs do not seem associated with an increased risk of diabetes, but they may perhaps provide a protective effect related to the suppression of bone turnover. However, further studies are needed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,664,489
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#112
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,717
of 115,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 115,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them