↓ Skip to main content

Does Training and Support of General Practitioners in Intensive Treatment of People with Screen-Detected Diabetes Improve Medication, Morbidity and Mortality in People with Clinically-Diagnosed…

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Does Training and Support of General Practitioners in Intensive Treatment of People with Screen-Detected Diabetes Improve Medication, Morbidity and Mortality in People with Clinically-Diagnosed Diabetes? Investigation of a Spill-Over Effect in a Cluster RCT
Published in
PLoS ONE, February 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0170697
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morten Charles, Mette V. Skriver, Simon J. Griffin, Rebecca K. Simmons, Daniel R. Witte, Else-Marie Dalsgaard, Torsten Lauritzen, Annelli Sandbæk

Abstract

Very few studies have examined the potential spill-over effect of a trial intervention in general practice. We investigated whether training and support of general practitioners in the intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes improved rates of redeemed medication, morbidity and mortality in people with clinically-diagnosed diabetes. This is a secondary, post-hoc, register-based analysis linked to a cluster randomised trial. In the ADDITION-Denmark trial, 175 general practices were cluster randomised (i) to routine care, or (ii) to receive training and support in intensive multifactorial treatment of individuals with screen-detected diabetes (2001 to 2009). Using national registers we identified all individuals who were diagnosed with clinically incident diabetes in the same practices over the same time period. (Patients participating in the ADDITION trial were excluded). We compared rates of redeemed medication, a cardiovascular composite endpoint, and all-cause mortality between the routine care and intensive treatment groups. In total, 4,107 individuals were diagnosed with clinically incident diabetes in ADDITION-Denmark practices between 2001 and 2009 (2,051 in the routine care group and 2,056 in the intensive treatment group). There were large and significant increases in the proportion of patients redeeming cardio-protective medication in both treatment groups during follow-up. After a median of seven years of follow-up, there was no difference in the incidence of a composite cardiovascular endpoint (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or all-cause mortality between the two groups (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.23). There was no evidence of a spill-over effect from an intervention promoting intensive treatment of people with screen-detected diabetes to those with clinically-diagnosed diabetes. Overall, the proportion of patients redeeming cardio-protective medication during follow-up was similar in both groups. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00237549.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 6 21%
Unspecified 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Unspecified 9 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 2 7%

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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,964,917
of 9,128,382 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#71,337
of 121,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,121
of 314,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#3,202
of 5,796 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,128,382 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 121,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 314,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,796 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.