↓ Skip to main content

Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
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 (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006383.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanne G Swinnen, Airin CR Simon, Frits Holleman, Joost B Hoekstra, J Hans DeVries

Abstract

Chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 181 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 20%
Researcher 34 18%
Student > Postgraduate 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 42 22%
Unknown 18 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 22 12%

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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,195,204
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,527
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,927
of 80,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 80,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 66% of its contemporaries.