↓ Skip to main content

Type 2 Diabetes Research Yield, 1951-2012: Bibliometrics Analysis and Density-Equalizing Mapping

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Type 2 Diabetes Research Yield, 1951-2012: Bibliometrics Analysis and Density-Equalizing Mapping
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0133009
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Geaney, Cristian Scutaru, Clare Kelly, Ronan W. Glynn, Ivan J. Perry

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed evaluation of type 2 diabetes mellitus research output from 1951-2012, using large-scale data analysis, bibliometric indicators and density-equalizing mapping. Data were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded database, one of the seven curated databases within Web of Science. Using Boolean operators "OR", "AND" and "NOT", a search strategy was developed to estimate the total number of published items. Only studies with an English abstract were eligible. Type 1 diabetes and gestational diabetes items were excluded. Specific software developed for the database analysed the data. Information including titles, authors' affiliations and publication years were extracted from all files and exported to excel. Density-equalizing mapping was conducted as described by Groenberg-Kloft et al, 2008. A total of 24,783 items were published and cited 476,002 times. The greatest number of outputs were published in 2010 (n=2,139). The United States contributed 28.8% to the overall output, followed by the United Kingdom (8.2%) and Japan (7.7%). Bilateral cooperation was most common between the United States and United Kingdom (n=237). Harvard University produced 2% of all publications, followed by the University of California (1.1%). The leading journals were Diabetes, Diabetologia and Diabetes Care and they contributed 9.3%, 7.3% and 4.0% of the research yield, respectively. In conclusion, the volume of research is rising in parallel with the increasing global burden of disease due to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Bibliometrics analysis provides useful information to scientists and funding agencies involved in the development and implementation of research strategies to address global health issues.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Librarian 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 19 28%
Unknown 13 19%

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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,189,103
of 8,149,094 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#82,805
of 113,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,840
of 229,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,600
of 6,235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,149,094 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 113,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 229,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6,235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.