↓ Skip to main content

Mortality and outcome of patients with brittle diabetes and recurrent ketoacidosis

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, September 1994
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Mortality and outcome of patients with brittle diabetes and recurrent ketoacidosis
Published in
The Lancet, September 1994
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92340-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

La Kent, G. Williams, G.V. Gill

Abstract

The long-term outlook of patients with brittle insulin-dependent diabetes is uncertain. We assessed the outcome of a group of young female patients with diabetes and recurrent ketoacidosis originally investigated in 1979-85 and reassessed after a mean of 10.5 (SD 1.4) years. 7 of the 33 patients could not be traced. 5 (19%) of the remaining 26 had died. Causes of death were not certain, but were probably ketoacidosis (2), hypoglycaemia (2), and renal failure (1). Of the 21 survivors, only 2 (10%) were still considered to have brittle diabetes. Diabetic complications were common (67%), and were more frequent than in a matched control group of stable patients with diabetes (25%). Brittle diabetic patients also had lower quality-of-life scores, more frequent psychosocial disruptions, and were on higher insulin doses (77 [39] vs 47 [15] U per day, p = 0.007) than controls. Pregnancy complications had occurred in 13 of 28 (46%) pregnancies in severely unstable patients compared with 2 of 27 (7%) in stable controls. Patients with brittle diabetes have a tendency to become more stable with time, but have a higher risk of death, more microvascular and pregnancy complications, and a poorer quality of life.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 4%
Portugal 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 20 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 25%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 38%
Unspecified 8 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Psychology 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 1 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2001.
All research outputs
#3,516,737
of 12,266,935 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#16,565
of 30,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,210
of 267,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#363
of 514 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,266,935 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,175 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 514 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.