↓ Skip to main content

Protein restriction for diabetic renal disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
142 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Protein restriction for diabetic renal disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002181.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn M Robertson, Norman Waugh, Aileen Robertson

Abstract

Diabetic renal disease (diabetic nephropathy) is a leading cause of end-stage renal failure. Once the process has started, it cannot be reversed by glycaemic control, but progression might be slowed by control of blood pressure and protein restriction. To assess the effects of dietary protein restriction on the progression of diabetic nephropathy in patients with diabetes. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Proceedings, Science Citation Index Expanded and bibliographies of included studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and before and after studies of the effects of a modified or restricted protein diet on diabetic renal function in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes following diet for at least four months were considered. Two reviewers performed data extraction and evaluation of quality independently. Pooling of results was done by means of random-effects model. Twelve studies were included, nine RCTs and three before and after studies. Only one study explored all-cause mortality and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) as endpoints. The relative risk (RR) of ESRD or death was 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.72) for patients assigned to a low protein diet (LPD). Pooling of the seven RCTs in patients with type 1 diabetes resulted in a non-significant reduction in the decline of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 0.1 ml/min/month (95% CI -0.1 to 0.3) in the LPD group. For type 2 diabetes, one trial showed a small insignificant improvement in the rate of decline of GFR in the protein-restricted group and a second found a similar decline in both the intervention and control groups. Actual protein intake in the intervention groups ranged from 0.7 to 1.1 g/kg/day. One study noted malnutrition in the LPD group. We found no data on the effects of LPDs on health-related quality of life and costs. The results show that reducing protein intake appears to slightly slow progression to renal failure but not statistically significantly so. However, questions concerning the level of protein intake and compliance remain. Further longer-term research on large representative groups of patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus is necessary. Because of the variability amongst patients, there might perhaps be a six month therapeutic trial of protein restriction in all individuals, with continuation only in those who responded best. Trials are required of different types of protein.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Morocco 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 127 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 19%
Other 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 33 25%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 15 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,424,635
of 14,453,232 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,238
of 10,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,956
of 262,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,453,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 262,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.