| Title |
Insulin Matters: A Practical Approach to Basal Insulin Management in Type 2 Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes Therapy, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13300-018-0375-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lori Berard, Noreen Antonishyn, Kathryn Arcudi, Sarah Blunden, Alice Cheng, Ronald Goldenberg, Stewart Harris, Shelley Jones, Upender Mehan, James Morrell, Robert Roscoe, Rick Siemens, Michael Vallis, Jean-François Yale |
| Abstract |
It is currently estimated that 11 million Canadians are living with diabetes or prediabetes. Although hyperglycemia is associated with serious complications, it is well established that improved glycemic control reduces the risk of microvascular complications and can also reduce cardiovascular (CV) complications over the long term. The UKPDS and ADVANCE landmark trials have resulted in diabetes guidelines recommending an A1C target of ≤ 7.0% for most patients or a target of ≤ 6.5% to further reduce the risk of nephropathy and retinopathy in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D), if it can be achieved safely. However, half of the people with T2D in Canada are not achieving these glycemic targets, despite advances in diabetes pharmacological management. There are many contributing factors to account for this poor outcome; however, one of the major factors is the delay in treatment advancement, particularly a resistance to insulin initiation and intensification. To simplify the process of initiating and titrating insulin in T2D patients, a group of Canadian experts reviewed the evidence and best clinical practices with the goal of providing guidance and practical recommendations to the diabetes healthcare community at large. This expert panel included general practitioners (GPs), nurses, nurse practitioners, endocrinologists, dieticians, pharmacists, and a psychologist. This article summarizes the panel recommendations. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 16% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 21 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 289. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#109,006
of 23,802,430 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#7
of 1,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,888
of 331,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#3
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,802,430 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 1,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 331,859 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 40 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 95% of its contemporaries.