↓ Skip to main content

Effect on cardiovascular disease risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in…

Overview of attention for article published in Health Expectations, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Effect on cardiovascular disease risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in primary care
Published in
Health Expectations, February 2017
DOI 10.1111/hex.12546
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hajira Dambha-Miller, Andrew J. M. Cooper, Ann Louise Kinmonth, Simon J. Griffin

Abstract

To examine the effect on cardiovascular (CVD) risk factors of interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes. Electronic and manual citation searching to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs that compared usual care to interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients. The population was adults aged over 18 years with type 2 diabetes. Trials were set in primary care. We recorded if explicit theory-based interventions were used, how consultations were measured to determine whether interventions had an effect on these and calculated weighted mean differences for CVD risk factors including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c ), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and HDL cholesterol (HDL-C). We included seven RCTs with a total of 2277 patients with type 2 diabetes. A range of measures of the consultation was reported, and underlying theory to explain intervention processes was generally undeveloped and poorly applied. There were no overall effects on CVD risk factors; however, trials were heterogeneous. Subgroup analysis suggested some benefit among studies in which interventions demonstrated impact on consultations; statistically significant reductions in HbA1c levels (weighted mean difference, -0.53%; 95% CI: [-0.77, -0.28]; P<.0001; I(2) =46%). Evidence of effect on CVD risk factors from interventions to alter consultations between practitioners and patients with type 2 diabetes was heterogeneous and inconclusive. This could be explained by variable impact of interventions on consultations. More research is required that includes robust measures of the consultations and better development of theory to elucidate mechanisms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 24%
Researcher 4 24%
Lecturer 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Librarian 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 5 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,000,330
of 13,285,014 outputs
Outputs from Health Expectations
#293
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,729
of 256,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Expectations
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,285,014 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 256,775 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.