| Title |
Hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: technological treatments, their limitations and the place of psychology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetologia, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00125-018-4566-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pratik Choudhary, Stephanie A. Amiel |
| Abstract |
Advances in technology allowing improved insulin delivery and glucose monitoring can significantly reduce the burden of hypoglycaemia when used appropriately. However, limitations of the current technology, and the skills, commitment and motivation required to use them, mean that it does not work for all people. Education and informed professional support are key to success. In the context of problematic hypoglycaemia, data suggest that newer technology has lower efficacy and uptake in those with most need. Identifying the causes of hypoglycaemia and understanding some of the underlying behavioural drivers may prove useful and psycho-educational strategies may be effective in selected individuals. Ultimately, as in many spheres of medicine, successful management of problematic hypoglycaemia depends upon matching the right treatment to the right individual. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 115 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 | 42 | 37% |
| Spain | 12 | 10% |
| France | 3 | 3% |
| Denmark | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 44 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 82 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 19 | 17% |
| Scientists | 13 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 40 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 19 January 2019.
All research outputs
#589,657
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#292
of 5,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,086
of 448,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#7
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,360 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 448,770 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 90% of its contemporaries.