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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Long‐acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005613.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karl Horvath, Klaus Jeitler, Andrea Berghold, Susanne H Ebrahim, Thomas W Gratzer, Johannes Plank, Thomas Kaiser, Thomas R Pieber, Andrea Siebenhofer |
| Abstract |
Despite indications from epidemiological trials that higher blood glucose concentrations are associated with a higher risk for developing micro- and macrovascular complications, evidence for a beneficial effect of antihyperglycaemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. Two large studies, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP), did not find a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improvement of metabolic control. The theoretical benefits of newer insulin analogues might result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 293 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 55 | 18% |
| Researcher | 37 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 26 | 9% |
| Other | 59 | 19% |
| Unknown | 57 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 133 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 45 | 15% |
| Unknown | 67 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 27 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,189,542
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,480
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,220
of 87,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 87,943 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.