| Title |
Does type 2 diabetes mellitus promote intervertebral disc degeneration?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-016-4612-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stella Maris Fabiane, Kirsten J. Ward, James C. Iatridis, Frances M. K. Williams |
| Abstract |
LDD is an important cause of low back pain. Many people believe there is an adverse influence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) on lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration (LDD). We examined a population sample for epidemiological evidence of association. Twin volunteers from the TwinsUK cohort having spine magnetic resonance (MR) scans coded for LDD and information about T2D were investigated in two ways. First, as a population sample and second as a cotwin case control study in twin pairs discordant for T2D. Other risk factors for LDD considered were age, body-mass index (BMI), smoking, and alcohol. In 956 twin volunteers T2D had a prevalence of 6.6 %. LDD score was higher in T2D twins (14.9 vs 13.1 p = 0.04) but was not an independent risk factor if the influence of age and BMI were included in the model. Discordant twin analysis (n = 33 pairs) showed no significant difference in LDD between twins having T2D and their unaffected cotwins. Twins having T2D did manifest higher LDD scores but the effect was abrogated once BMI was included in multivariable analysis, showing it is not an independent risk factor for LDD. The population study had 80 % power at 0.1 significance level to detect a difference of 1.8 in LDD score (range of 0-60), so if there is an effect of T2D on LDD, it is likely to be small. |
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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 23% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 37% |
| Engineering | 7 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,462,696
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,479
of 4,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,379
of 340,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#35
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 340,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.