| Title |
Epidemiology of Fractures in Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Calcified Tissue International, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00223-016-0175-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jakob Starup-Linde, Morten Frost, Peter Vestergaard, Bo Abrahamsen |
| Abstract |
Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of fracture. The risk of a hip fracture is up to sevenfold increased in patients with type 1 diabetes and about 1.3-fold increased in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, these relative risk estimates may depend on the age and gender distribution of the population in question. Bone mineral density and the fracture risk assessment tool do not explain the increased fracture risk in patients with diabetes. Shared risk factors as pancreatitis, alcohol use, smoking and oral glucocorticoids may influence the observed fracture risk in patients with diabetes. This review examines the association between diabetes and fracture and attempts to disentangle the tight connection between diabetes per se, diabetes-related complications, comorbidities and shared risk factors. This is of great importance as the number of diabetes patients' increases with growing and aging populations and putting even more at risk of fracture. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Argentina | 1 | 11% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 101 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 18% |
| Unknown | 34 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 16 March 2019.
All research outputs
#924,367
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Calcified Tissue International
#31
of 1,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,161
of 366,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Calcified Tissue International
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 366,705 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 91% of its contemporaries.