| Title |
Comparative Effectiveness for Glycemic Control in Older Adults with Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Geriatrics Reports, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13670-017-0215-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Quartuccio, Brian Buta, Rita Rastogi Kalyani |
| Abstract |
To review and summarize the current data for comparative effectiveness of glycemic control in older adults. In the last several years, professional societies have released guidelines for glycemic control in older adults, generally recommending individualized HbA1c goals. However, recent observational studies demonstrate that many older adults remain aggressively managed and are at increased risk of hypoglycemia. Large randomized trials of older adults with diabetes have failed to show cardiovascular benefit from intensive glycemic control and show only minimal microvascular benefit. Additionally, a few studies suggest that suboptimal glycemic control can increase the risk for geriatric syndromes. Emerging research suggests similar safety and efficacy of glucose-lowering therapies in older versus younger adults. Overall, there is a paucity of data supporting the benefit of intensive glycemic control in older adults. More research is needed in this vulnerable population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 42% |
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 10 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,291,649
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from Current Geriatrics Reports
#62
of 130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,650
of 317,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Geriatrics Reports
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 317,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.