↓ Skip to main content

The EMPA-REG outcome study: critical appraisal and potential clinical implications

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
The EMPA-REG outcome study: critical appraisal and potential clinical implications
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12933-016-0403-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianluca Perseghin, Anna Solini

Abstract

Diabetes health care professionals have to face a study with results of incomparable success in secondary and tertiary cardiovascular disease prevention. In the past, no studies in patients with type 2 diabetes resulted to be successful in inducing an improvement of cardiovascular prognosis, no matter whether they were focused on a target, on life-style or on pharmacological intervention. On a clinical perspective, should the diabetologist's way to think about the anti-diabetic therapy of patients on secondary cardiovascular prevention change based on the results of Empa-Reg outcome? Due to the complexity of the clinical picture of patients with type 2 diabetes, a tailored therapy based on targets, complications, co-morbidity, familial and social environment, personal and cultural features must be conceived and applied in starting pharmacological therapy; however, the question whether should we consider empagliflozin as first choice therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes exposed to high cardiovascular risk, the Empa-Reg outcome-like patient, awaits now for an answer. Waiting for data confirming the results of the Empa-Reg outcome study, this report goes through the good reasons in support of this way of thinking, but at the same time explores the many unanswered questions raising potential concerns about this clinical choice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 1%
Unknown 93 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 16%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 22 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#13,473,246
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#652
of 1,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,545
of 339,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 339,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.