↓ 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 this source, 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
277 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 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 by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, April 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005613.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Horvath, Karl, Jeitler, Klaus, Berghold, Andrea, Ebrahim, Susanne H, Gratzer, Thomas W, Plank, Johannes, Kaiser, Thomas, Pieber, Thomas R, Siebenhofer, Andrea

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 211 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%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 201 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 21%
Researcher 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 10%
Other 66 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 52%
Unspecified 32 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 38 18%

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 2017.
All research outputs
#692,085
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from this source
#1,361
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,008
of 133,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from this source
#14
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 133,808 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.