↓ 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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
201 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
589 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 29 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 589 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 577 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 108 18%
Student > Bachelor 89 15%
Researcher 69 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 10%
Other 48 8%
Other 126 21%
Unknown 89 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 283 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 68 12%
Social Sciences 24 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 3%
Other 73 12%
Unknown 107 18%

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
#886,285
of 16,344,667 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,409
of 11,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,895
of 189,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,344,667 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 189,940 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 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.