↓ Skip to main content

Low glycaemic index, or low glycaemic load, diets for diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
214 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
394 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Low glycaemic index, or low glycaemic load, diets for diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006296.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Thomas, Elizabeth J Elliott

Abstract

The aim of diabetes management is to normalise blood glucose levels, since improved blood glucose control is associated with reduction in development, and progression, of complications. Nutritional factors affect blood glucose levels, however there is currently no universal approach to the optimal dietary treatment for diabetes. There is controversy about how useful the glycaemic index (GI) is in diabetic meal planning. Improved glycaemic control through diet could minimise medications, lessen risk of diabetic complications, improve quality of life and increase life expectancy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 394 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 372 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 21%
Student > Bachelor 71 18%
Researcher 53 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 10%
Student > Postgraduate 36 9%
Other 113 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 182 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 13%
Unspecified 36 9%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Other 53 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 15 January 2019.
All research outputs
#337,475
of 13,221,142 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#959
of 10,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,980
of 107,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,221,142 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 107,480 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.