Title |
Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009122.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Birgit Fullerton, Klaus Jeitler, Mirjam Seitz, Karl Horvath, Andrea Berghold, Andrea Siebenhofer |
Abstract |
Clinical guidelines differ regarding their recommended blood glucose targets for patients with type 1 diabetes and recent studies on patients with type 2 diabetes suggest that aiming at very low targets can increase the risk of mortality. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 6 | 29% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
Brazil | 1 | 5% |
Colombia | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 11 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 19 | 90% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 781 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
Italy | 1 | <1% |
Colombia | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 770 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 122 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 107 | 14% |
Researcher | 73 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 9% |
Other | 52 | 7% |
Other | 158 | 20% |
Unknown | 202 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 321 | 41% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 82 | 10% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 24 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 2% |
Other | 93 | 12% |
Unknown | 219 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,658,273
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,506
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,118
of 332,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 332,715 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 234 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 70% of its contemporaries.