↓ Skip to main content

Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking for diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking for diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2011
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008488.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Igor Wei, Yannis Pappas, Josip Car, Aziz Sheikh, Azeem Majeed

Abstract

Diabetes is a chronic illness characterised by insulin resistance or deficiency, resulting in elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Diet and adherence to dietary advice is associated with lower HbA1c levels and control of disease. Dietary history may be an effective clinical tool for diabetes management and has traditionally been taken by oral-and-written methods, although it can also be collected using computer-assisted history taking systems (CAHTS). Although CAHTS were first described in the 1960s, there remains uncertainty about the impact of these methods on dietary history collection, clinical care and patient outcomes such as quality of life. 

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 153 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 24%
Researcher 27 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 39%
Social Sciences 17 11%
Psychology 13 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 29 18%

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 31 January 2012.
All research outputs
#10,023,986
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,369
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,708
of 217,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#433
of 492 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 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 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 217,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 492 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.