↓ Skip to main content

Long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for type 2 diabetes mellitus

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
299 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 238 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 21%
Researcher 33 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 10%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 30 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 38 15%
Unknown 41 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,026,088
of 15,226,654 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,931
of 11,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,449
of 155,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,226,654 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 11,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. 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 155,328 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.