↓ 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 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Librarian 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 15%
Social Sciences 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Other 24 27%
Unknown 24 27%
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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#18,420,033
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#154,880
of 194,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,288
of 263,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,832
of 6,293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 263,414 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 6,293 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.