↓ Skip to main content

Aldose reductase inhibitors for the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Aldose reductase inhibitors for the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004572.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Chalk, Tim J Benstead, Fraser Moore

Abstract

Polyneuropathy, a common complication of diabetes mellitus, causes pain and sensory and motor deficits in the limbs, and is also an important independent predictor of foot ulceration. Inhibiting the metabolism of glucose by the polyol pathway using aldose reductase inhibitors is a potential mechanism to slow or reverse the neuropathy's progression. To assess the effects of aldose reductase inhibitors on the progression of symptoms, signs or functional disability in diabetic polyneuropathy. We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (from January 1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (from January 1980 to May 2007) and LILACS (from 1982 to May 2007). We reviewed bibliographies of randomized trials identified, and contacted authors and experts in the field. We included randomized controlled trials comparing an aldose reductase inhibitor with control, and lasting at least six months. The primary outcome measure was change in neurological function, measured in various ways, including strength testing, sensory examination, and composite scores of neurological examination. Secondary outcome measures were nerve conduction studies, neuropathic symptoms, quality of life, occurrence of foot ulcers and adverse effects. Trials included in the review were selected and assessed independently by at least two of us. Methodological criteria and study results were recorded on data extraction forms. Thirty-two randomized controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Many had significant methodological flaws. Change in neurological function, our primary outcome measure, was assessed in 29 trials, but sufficient data for meta-analysis were only available in 13 studies, involving 879 treated participants and 909 controls. There was no overall significant difference between the treated and control groups (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.05), although one subgroup analysis (four trials using tolrestat) favored treatment. A benefit for neuropathic symptoms was suggested by a group of trials using a dichotomized endpoint (improvement or not), but this was contradicted by another group of trials which measured symptoms on a continuous scale. There was no overall benefit on nerve conduction parameters (27 studies) or foot ulceration (one study). Quality of life was not assessed in any of the studies. While most adverse events were infrequent and minor, three compounds had dose limiting adverse events that lead to their withdrawal from human use: severe hypersensitivity reactions with sorbinil, elevation of creatinine with zenarestat, and alteration of liver function with tolrestat. We found no statistically significant difference between aldose reductase inhibitors and placebo in the treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy. Any future clinical trials of aldose reductase inhibitors should be restricted to compounds proven to have substantial biological or preclinical advantages over previously tested agents.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 15%
Unspecified 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Other 14 19%

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 19 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,030,894
of 13,384,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,614
of 10,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,648
of 248,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#62
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,384,384 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 10,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 248,955 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.