↓ Skip to main content

Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents – a randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Treatment satisfaction and quality-of-life between type 2 diabetes patients initiating long- vs. intermediate-acting basal insulin therapy in combination with oral hypoglycemic agents – a randomized, prospective, crossover, open clinical trial
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-015-0279-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Norbert Hermanns, Bernd Kulzer, Thomas Kohlmann, Stephan Jacob, Wolfgang Landgraf, Karlheinz Theobald, Thomas Haak

Abstract

Pharmacological and clinical differences between insulin glargine and NPH insulin may translate into differences in patient reported outcomes, but existing data are equivocal. In this 48-week, open-label, randomized, multi-center, crossover phase IV trial, insulin naïve type 2 diabetes patients with blood glucose not at target on oral hypoglycemic agents had basal insulin added to their treatment regimen. A total of 343 patients were randomized to either receive insulin glargine (n = 176; sequence A) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (n = 167; sequence B) in period 1 (weeks 1-24) and vice versa in period 2 (weeks 25-48). The primary objective was to assess patient reported outcomes using a composite Diabetes Related Quality of Life (DRQoL) score based on an unweighted Insulin Treatment Experience Questionnaire (ITEQ) score, a Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) questionnaire score, and the mental health score in the Short Form (SF)-12® Health Survey, analyzed by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Patients (mean age 62.3 ± 9.0; 39.5 % female) had a mean diabetes duration of 9.6 ± 5.9 years, a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.15 ± 0.72 %, and a mean fasting blood glucose (FBG) level of 9.37 ± 2.19 mmol/L. A total of 229 patients were available for primary endpoint evaluation (modified intention to treat population). Combining all data from both periods for each insulin treatment, on a 0-100 scale, the mean DRQoL score was 69.6 (±9.04) with insulin glargine and 70.0 (±9.40) with NPH insulin. Neither an effect of treatment with insulin glargine vs NPH insulin (p = 0.31) nor a period effect (p = 0.96), nor a sequence effect (p = 0.76) was observed using ANCOVA. The results show that in a patient population with sub-optimal glycemic control at baseline, and a low target achievement rate together with a low rate of hypoglycemia, differences in the patient reported outcomes evaluated in this study were negligible between insulin glargine and NPH insulin. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00941369.

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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 13%
Unspecified 10 10%
Other 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 30 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Unspecified 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,434,918
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,140
of 2,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,294
of 267,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 267,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.