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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 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 | 193 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Researcher | 21 | 11% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 66 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 16% |
| Unknown | 68 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,234,139
of 25,736,439 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,571
of 13,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,468
of 159,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,736,439 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 13,137 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. 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 159,581 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 92% of its contemporaries.