↓ Skip to main content

Screening for type 2 diabetes: do screen-detected cases fare better?

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetologia, August 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Screening for type 2 diabetes: do screen-detected cases fare better?
Published in
Diabetologia, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00125-017-4402-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adina L. Feldman, Simon J. Griffin, Eva Fhärm, Margareta Norberg, Patrik Wennberg, Lars Weinehall, Olov Rolandsson

Abstract

We aimed to investigate whether diabetes cases detected through screening have better health outcomes than clinically detected cases in a population-based cohort of adults who were eligible to be screened for diabetes at 10 year intervals. The Västerbotten Intervention Programme is a community- and individual-based public health programme in Västerbotten County, Sweden. Residents are invited to clinical examinations that include screening for diabetes by OGTTs at age 30, 40, 50 and 60 years (individuals eligible for screening, n = 142,037). Between 1992 and 2013, we identified 1024 screen-detected cases and 8642 clinically detected cases of diabetes using registry data. Clinically detected individuals were either prior screening participants (n = 4506) or people who did not participate in screening (non-participants, n = 4136). Study individuals with diabetes were followed from date of detection until end of follow-up, emigration, death or incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), renal disease or retinopathy event, and compared using Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for calendar time, age at detection, year of detection, sex and socioeconomic status. The average age at diabetes diagnosis was 4.6 years lower for screen-detected individuals compared with clinically detected individuals. Overall, those who were clinically detected had worse health outcomes than those who were screen-detected (HR for all-cause mortality 2.07 [95% CI 1.63, 2.62]). Compared with screen-detected study individuals, all-cause mortality was higher for clinically detected individuals who were screening non-participants (HR 2.31 [95% CI 1.82, 2.94]) than for those clinically detected who were prior screening participants (HR 1.70 [95% CI 1.32, 2.18]). Estimates followed a similar pattern for CVD, renal disease and retinopathy. Individuals with screen-detected diabetes were diagnosed earlier and appeared to fare better than those who were clinically detected with regard to all-cause mortality, CVD, renal disease and retinopathy. How much of these associations can be explained by earlier treatment because of screening rather than healthy user bias, lead time bias and length time bias warrants further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Unspecified 4 14%
Other 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 46%
Unspecified 5 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 83. 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 06 November 2017.
All research outputs
#161,846
of 12,104,225 outputs
Outputs from Diabetologia
#118
of 3,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,477
of 265,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetologia
#7
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,104,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 265,777 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.