↓ Skip to main content

Pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
276 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006060.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Richter, Elizabeth Bandeira-Echtler, Karla Bergerhoff, Christine Clar, Susanne H Ebrahim

Abstract

Diabetes has long been recognised as a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a problem which accounts for approximately 70% of all mortality in people with diabetes. Prospective studies show that compared to their non-diabetic counterparts, the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality for men with diabetes is two to three and for women with diabetes is three to four. The two biggest trials in type 2 diabetes, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) study did not reveal a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improved metabolic control. Theoretical benefits of the newer peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma) activators like pioglitazone on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk factors might result in fewer macrovascular disease events in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 276 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
Italy 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 261 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 21%
Student > Bachelor 40 14%
Researcher 33 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 52 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 10%
Psychology 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Social Sciences 9 3%
Other 39 14%
Unknown 64 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 28 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,798,994
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,477
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,312
of 66,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#17
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 66,926 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.