↓ 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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 8 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 3%
Germany 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Unknown 101 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 20%
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Other 11 10%
Other 29 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 41%
Unspecified 13 12%
Chemistry 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Other 25 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,646,432
of 13,297,120 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,374
of 10,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,525
of 233,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,297,120 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 233,963 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 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 51% of its contemporaries.