↓ Skip to main content

Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009122.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birgit Fullerton, Klaus Jeitler, Mirjam Seitz, Karl Horvath, Andrea Berghold, Andrea Siebenhofer

Abstract

Clinical guidelines differ regarding their recommended blood glucose targets for patients with type 1 diabetes and recent studies on patients with type 2 diabetes suggest that aiming at very low targets can increase the risk of mortality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 381 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 19%
Student > Bachelor 61 15%
Unspecified 45 11%
Researcher 43 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 11%
Other 126 32%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 203 52%
Unspecified 56 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 11%
Social Sciences 17 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 4%
Other 57 14%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 08 June 2019.
All research outputs
#652,015
of 13,477,663 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,093
of 10,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,050
of 186,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#50
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,477,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,614 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 80% 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 186,850 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 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.