| Title |
Mechanisms behind the superior effects of interval vs continuous training on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-014-3334-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristian Karstoft, Kamilla Winding, Sine H. Knudsen, Noemi G. James, Maria M. Scheel, Jesper Olesen, Jens J. Holst, Bente K. Pedersen, Thomas P. J. Solomon |
| Abstract |
By use of a parallel and partly crossover randomised, controlled trial design we sought to elucidate the underlying mechanisms behind the advantageous effects of interval walking training (IWT) compared with continuous walking training (CWT) on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. We hypothesised that IWT, more than CWT, would improve insulin sensitivity including skeletal muscle insulin signalling, insulin secretion and disposition index (DI). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 | 5 | 14% |
| Canada | 4 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 11% |
| Italy | 2 | 6% |
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Sweden | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 60% |
| Scientists | 8 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 240 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 57 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 12% |
| Researcher | 20 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 12% |
| Unknown | 48 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 73 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 63 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 183. 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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#201,138
of 24,004,724 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#115
of 5,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,701
of 233,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#2
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,004,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,205 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 233,915 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.