↓ Skip to main content

Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008143.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hemmingsen B, Lund SS, Gluud C, Vaag A, Almdal TP, Hemmingsen C, Wetterslev J, Hemmingsen, Bianca, Lund, Søren S, Gluud, Christian, Vaag, Allan, Almdal, Thomas P, Wetterslev, Jørn

Abstract

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality compared to the background population. Observational studies report an association between reduced blood glucose and reduced risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with T2D. Our previous systematic review of intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control was based on 20 randomised clinical trials that randomised 29 ,986 participants with T2D. We now report our updated review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Chile 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 121 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Postgraduate 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Master 13 10%
Other 41 32%
Unknown 8 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 16 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#367,822
of 14,272,588 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#972
of 10,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,550
of 185,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,272,588 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 185,163 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.