↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 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 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 228 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 26%
Student > Bachelor 32 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 12%
Researcher 25 10%
Unspecified 24 10%
Other 71 29%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 49%
Unspecified 39 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Other 38 16%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,788,846
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,880
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,117
of 93,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#82
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 93,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.