↓ Skip to main content

Effect of the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus on the development of cognitive impairment and dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
46 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 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 of the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus on the development of cognitive impairment and dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003804.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Almudena Areosa Sastre, Robin WM Vernooij, Magali González-Colaço Harmand, Gabriel Martínez

Abstract

Prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia is an important public health goal. Epidemiological evidence shows a relationship between cognitive impairment and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The risk of dementia increases with duration of disease. This updated systematic review investigated the effect on cognitive function of the type of treatment and level of metabolic control in people with Type 2 diabetes. To assess the effects of different strategies for managing Type 2 diabetes mellitus on cognitive function and the incidence of dementia. We searched ALOIS (the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG)), the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS on 15 October 2016. ALOIS contains records from all major health care databases, (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many trials' registers and grey literature sources. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared two or more different treatments for Type 2 diabetes mellitus and in which cognitive function was measured at baseline and after treatment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included RCTs. We pooled data for comparable trials and estimated the effects of treatment by using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), according to the nature of the outcome. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. We identified seven eligible studies but only four provided data we could include in efficacy analyses. Two of these studies compared intensive versus standard glycaemic control and two compared different pharmacological treatments. All studies were at unclear risk of bias in at least two domains and one large study was at high risk of performance and detection bias.(a) Two studies with 13,934 participants at high cardiovascular risk provided efficacy data on intensive versus standard glycaemic control. A third study with 1791 participants provided additional data on hypoglycaemic episodes and mortality. There is probably no difference between treatment groups in the number of participants who decline by at least 3 points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) over five years (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 1 study; n = 11,140; moderate-quality evidence); and there may also be little or no difference in the incidence of dementia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.85; 1 study; n = 11,140; low-quality evidence). From another study, there was probably little or no difference in MMSE score after 40 months (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.16; 1 study; n = 2794; moderate quality evidence). Participants exposed to the intensive glycaemic control strategy probably experience more episodes of severe hypoglycaemia than those who have standard treatment (RR 2.18, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.14; 2 studies; n = 12,827; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence from these trials suggests that the intensity of glycaemic control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.13; 3 studies; n = 15,888; low-quality evidence).(b) One study with 156 participants compared glibenclamide (glyburide) with repaglinide. There may be a small advantage of glibenclamide on global cognitive function measured with the MMSE after 12 months (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.12; low-quality evidence). No data were reported on the incidence of dementia, hypoglycaemic events or all-cause mortality.(c) One study with 145 participants compared rosiglitazone plus metformin to glibenclamide (glyburide) plus metformin over 24 weeks. It reported only on cognitive subdomains and not on global cognitive function, incidence of MCI or dementia, hypoglycaemic events or all causes of mortality. We found no good evidence that any specific treatment or treatment strategy for Type 2 diabetes can prevent or delay cognitive impairment. The best available evidence related to the comparison of intensive with standard glycaemic control strategies. Here there was moderate-quality evidence that the strategies do not differ in their effect on global cognitive functioning over 40 to 60 months.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
India 1 <1%
Iceland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 251 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 21%
Student > Bachelor 39 15%
Unspecified 38 15%
Researcher 34 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 11%
Other 65 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 39%
Unspecified 48 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 10%
Psychology 22 9%
Social Sciences 18 7%
Other 45 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#410,619
of 13,512,146 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,208
of 10,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,525
of 267,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,512,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 267,699 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.