↓ Skip to main content

Sarcopenia: a chronic complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 677)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 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
Sarcopenia: a chronic complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13098-018-0326-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heloísa Trierweiler, Gabrielle Kisielewicz, Thaísa Hoffmann Jonasson, Ricardo Rasmussen Petterle, Carolina Aguiar Moreira, Victória Zeghbi Cochenski Borba

Abstract

Diabetics are at increased risk for impaired mobility and strength, frequently related to the disease control. Sarcopenia is the reduction of muscle mass associated with the decrease in muscle strength and/or performance, resulting in worse morbidity in chronic diseases. The objectives of this paper was to assess the prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and determine its association with diabetes characteristics, progression, and complications, as well as changes in bone mineral density. The sample consisted of patients with T2DM followed at the outpatient clinics of the Serviço de Endocrinologia e Metabologia do Hospital de Clínicas da Universidade Federal do Paraná, from March to August 2016. Participants were men and women above 18 years with T2DM diagnosed at least 1 year earlier. Individuals with chronic diseases, users of any drug that modifies body composition, patients with body mass index (BMI) > 35 or < 18 kg/m2, and users of illicit drugs or hormonal or nutritional supplementation were excluded. The selected patients answered questionnaires about demographics, eating habits, and disease characteristics, and performed a bone densitometry exam in a dual energy absorptiometry (total body; spine and femur (total and neck)), a handgrip test by manual dynamometer, and an evaluation of the abdominal circumference (AC). The medical records were reviewed seeking diabetes data and laboratory test results. Patients were matched for sex, age, and race with healthy controls [Control Group (CG)]. The diagnosis of sarcopenia was conducted according to the criteria of the Foundation for National Institute of Health. The final sample consisted of 83 patients in the DG and 83 in the CG. The DG had higher BMI, WC, past history of fractures and lower calcium and healthy diet intake (p < 0.005), compared to the CG. The DG presented a higher frequency of abnormal BMD (osteopenia in 45 (53%), and osteoporosis in 14 (19%)) and comorbidities than the CG (p < 0.005). Pre-sarcopenia was not different between groups, but muscle weakness was present in 25 diabetics (18 women) and only in 5 controls (4 men) (p = 0.00036). Sarcopenia was diagnosed in 13 (16.2%) patients in the DG and 2 (2.4%) in the CG (p = 0.01168). Pre-sarcopenia and sarcopenia were associated with altered BMD (p < 0.005), with no association with diabetes duration or control. Body mass index and osteoporosis increased the likelihood to have sarcopenia, but hypertension and healthy diet decreased it. The DG had altered BMD associated with worse glycemic control, and a higher prevalence of sarcopenia, suggesting the need to look for their presence in diabetics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 279 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Master 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Researcher 21 8%
Other 11 4%
Other 39 14%
Unknown 113 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Sports and Recreations 10 4%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 24 9%
Unknown 129 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 15 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,607,107
of 23,035,022 outputs
Outputs from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#46
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,720
of 329,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,035,022 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 329,113 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.