↓ Skip to main content

'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2005
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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
'Human' insulin versus animal insulin in people with diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003816.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Richter, Gudrun Neises

Abstract

Human insulin was introduced for the routine treatment of diabetes mellitus in the early 1980s without adequate comparison of efficacy to animal insulin preparations. First reports of altered hypoglycaemia awareness after transfer to human insulin made physicians and especially patients uncertain about potential adverse effects of human insulin.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 17%
Researcher 19 15%
Other 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 24 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,872,171
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,438
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,499
of 240,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 240,003 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.