↓ Skip to main content

Dietary glycemic index and retinal microvasculature in adults: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Dietary glycemic index and retinal microvasculature in adults: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Nutrition Journal, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12937-016-0209-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Sanchez-Aguadero, Rosario Alonso-Dominguez, Jose I. Recio-Rodriguez, Maria C. Patino-Alonso, Manuel A. Gomez-Marcos, Carlos Martin-Cantera, Yolanda Schmolling-Guinovart, Luis Garcia-Ortiz, the EVIDENT II Group

Abstract

To analyze the relationship between dietary glycemic index (GI) and retinal microvasculature in adults. This was a cross-sectional study of 300 subjects from the EVIDENT II study. Dietary GI was calculated using a validated, semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Retinal photographs were digitized, temporal vessels were measured in an area 0.5-1 disc diameter from the optic disc and arteriolar-venular index (AVI) was estimated with semi-automated software. AVI showed a significant difference between the tertiles of GI, after adjusting for potential confounders. The lowest AVI values were observed among subjects in the highest tertile of GI, whereas the greatest were found among those in the lowest tertile (estimated marginal mean of 0.738 vs. 0.768, p = 0.014). In adults, high dietary GI implies lowering AVI values regardless of age, gender and other confounding variables. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT02016014 . Registered 9 December 2013.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 October 2017.
All research outputs
#17,825,154
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,237
of 1,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,860
of 316,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,433 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 316,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.