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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluating optimal utilisation of technology in type 1 diabetes mellitus from a clinical and health economic perspective: protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0706-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony Pease, Clement Lo, Arul Earnest, Danny Liew, Sophia Zoungas |
| Abstract |
Technology has been implemented since the 1970s with the hope of improving glycaemic control and reducing the burden of complications for those living with type 1 diabetes. A clinical and cost-effectiveness comparison of all available technologies including continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), sensor-augmented pump therapy (including either low-glucose suspend or predictive low-glucose suspend), hybrid closed-loop systems, closed-loop (single-hormone or dual-hormone) systems, flash glucose monitoring (FGM), insulin bolus calculators, and 'smart-device' applications is currently lacking. This systematic review, network meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis aims to summarise available evidence regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of available technologies in the management of patients with type 1 diabetes. Relevant studies will be searched using a comprehensive strategy through MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations, EMBASE, PubMed, all evidenced-based medicine reviews, EconLit, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and PROSPERO for randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations. The search strategy will assess if there are combinations of currently available technologies that are superior to each other or to insulin injections and capillary blood glucose testing with regard to glycaemic control, morbidity/mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two reviewers will screen all articles for eligibility and then independently evaluate risk of bias, complete quality assessment, and extract data for included studies. Network meta-analyses will be performed where there is sufficient homogenous clinical data. Narrative synthesis will be performed for heterogeneous clinical data that cannot be pooled for network meta-analysis with critical appraisal of economic evaluations. This systematic review protocol utilises rigorous methodology and pre-determined eligibility criteria to provide a uniquely comprehensive search for a broad spectrum of clinical and economic outcomes in comparing multiple currently available technologies for managing type 1 diabetes. Evidence on which technologies may be most appropriate for particular patient groups will be examined as well as the economic justification for funding of different technologies. PROSPERO ( CRD42017077221 ). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 39 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 7% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 41 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,810,623
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#993
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,031
of 332,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#30
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 332,699 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.