↓ Skip to main content

Beverage consumption and mortality among adults with type 2 diabetes: prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
98 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
1185 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beverage consumption and mortality among adults with type 2 diabetes: prospective cohort study
Published in
British Medical Journal, April 2023
DOI 10.1136/bmj-2022-073406
Pubmed ID
Authors

Le Ma, Yang Hu, Derrick J Alperet, Gang Liu, Vasanti Malik, JoAnn E Manson, Eric B Rimm, Frank B Hu, Qi Sun

Abstract

To investigate the intake of specific types of beverages in relation to mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. Prospective cohort study. Health professionals in the United States. 15 486 men and women with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes at baseline and during follow-up (Nurses' Health Study: 1980-2018; and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study: 1986-2018). Beverage consumption was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire and updated every two to four years. The main outcome was all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were CVD incidence and mortality. During an average of 18.5 years of follow-up, 3447 (22.3%) participants with incident CVD and 7638 (49.3%) deaths were documented. After multivariable adjustment, when comparing the categories of lowest intake of beverages with the highest intake, the pooled hazard ratios for all cause mortality were 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.37) for sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs), 0.96 (0.86 to 1.07) for artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs), 0.98 (0.90 to 1.06) for fruit juice, 0.74 (0.63 to 0.86) for coffee, 0.79 (0.71 to 0.89) for tea, 0.77 (0.70 to 0.85) for plain water, 0.88 (0.80 to 0.96) for low fat milk, and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.44) for full fat milk. Similar associations were observed between the individual beverages and CVD incidence and mortality. In particular, SSB intake was associated with a higher risk of incident CVD (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.51) and CVD mortality (1.29, 1.02 to 1.63), whereas significant inverse associations were observed between intake of coffee and low fat milk and CVD incidence. Additionally, compared with those who did not change their consumption of coffee in the period after a diabetes diagnosis, a lower all cause mortality was observed in those who increased their consumption of coffee. A similar pattern of association with all cause mortality was also observed for tea, and low fat milk. Replacing SSBs with ABSs was significantly associated with lower all cause mortality and CVD mortality, and replacing SSBs, ASBs, fruit juice, or full fat milk with coffee, tea, or plain water was consistently associated with lower all cause mortality. Individual beverages showed divergent associations with all cause mortality and CVD outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes. Higher intake of SSBs was associated with higher all cause mortality and CVD incidence and mortality, whereas intakes of coffee, tea, plain water, and low fat milk were inversely associated with all cause mortality. These findings emphasize the potential role of healthy choices of beverages in managing the risk of CVD and premature death overall in adults with type 2 diabetes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,185 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 8%
Other 5 6%
Unspecified 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 43 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 15%
Unspecified 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 47 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1515. 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 03 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,830
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#208
of 64,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229
of 416,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#7
of 781 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 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 64,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.2. 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 416,028 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 781 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 99% of its contemporaries.