↓ Skip to main content

Exercise training and endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Exercise training and endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12933-018-0711-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shanhu Qiu, Xue Cai, Han Yin, Zilin Sun, Martina Zügel, Jürgen Michael Steinacker, Uwe Schumann

Abstract

Exercise training is considered a cornerstone in the management of type 2 diabetes, which is associated with impaired endothelial function. However, the association of exercise training with endothelial function in type 2 diabetes patients has not been fully understood. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate their associations with focus on exercise types. Databases were searched up to January 2018 for studies evaluating the influences of exercise training with durations ≥ 8 weeks on endothelial function assessed by flow-mediated dilation (FMD) among type 2 diabetes patients or between type 2 diabetics and non-diabetics. Data were pooled using random-effects models to obtain the weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sixteen databases were included. Exercise training resulted in an overall improvement in FMD by 1.77% (95% CI 0.94-2.59%) in type 2 diabetes patients. Specifically, both aerobic and combined aerobic and resistance exercise increased FMD by 1.21% (95% CI 0.23-2.19%) and 2.49% (95% CI 1.17-3.81%), respectively; but resistance exercise only showed a trend. High-intensity interval aerobic exercise did not significantly improve FMD over moderate-intensity continuous exercise. Notably, the improvement in FMD among type 2 diabetes patients was smaller compared with non-diabetics in response to exercise training (WMD - 0.72%, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.08%) or specifically to aerobic exercise (WMD - 0.65%, 95% CI - 1.31 to 0.01%). Exercise training, in particular aerobic and combined exercise, improves endothelial function in type 2 diabetes patients, but such an improvement appears to be weakened compared with non-diabetics. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42018087376.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Sports and Recreations 14 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 28 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#9,346,629
of 15,261,320 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#448
of 870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,934
of 278,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,261,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 278,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them