↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 241 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Bachelor 31 13%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 106 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 37 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Sports and Recreations 28 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 18 7%
Unknown 110 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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
#15,708,439
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#884
of 1,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,018
of 327,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 327,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.