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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Efficacy of Pharmacist Based Diabetes Educational Interventions on Clinical Outcomes of Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00339 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allah Bukhsh, Tahir M. Khan, Shaun W. H. Lee, Learn-Han Lee, Kok-Gan Chan, Bey-Hing Goh |
| Abstract |
Background: Comparative efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on glycemic control of type 2 diabetes patients is unclear. This review aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different pharmacist based interventions on clinical outcomes of type 2 diabetes patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across five databases from date of database inception to September 2017. All randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of pharmacist based interventions on type 2 diabetes patients were included for network meta-analysis (NMA). The protocol is available with PROSPERO (CRD42017078854). Results: A total of 43 studies, involving 6259 type 2 diabetes patients, were included. NMA demonstrated that all interventions significantly lowered glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels compared to usual care, but there was no statistical evidence from this study that one intervention was significantly better than the other for reducing HbA1c levels. Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care showed maximum efficacy for reducing HbA1c levels [-0.86, 95% CI -0.983, -0.727; p < 0.001]. Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care was observed to be statistically significant in lowering levels of systolic blood pressure [-4.94; 95%CI -8.65, -1.23] and triglycerides levels [-0.26, 95%CI -0.51, -0.01], as compared to the interventions which involved diabetes education by pharmacist, and for body mass index (BMI) [-0.57; 95%CI -1.25, -0.12] in comparison to diabetes education by health care team involving pharmacist as member. Conclusion: The findings of this review demonstrate that all interventions had a significantly positive effect on HbA1c, but there was no statistical evidence from this study that one intervention was significantly better than the other for achieving glycemic control.Pharmacist based diabetes education plus pharmaceutical care showed maximum efficacy on HbA1c and rest of the clinical outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 22% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 11% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 112 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Researcher | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 25 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 45 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 14 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,002,797
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#754
of 16,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,169
of 330,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#33
of 395 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 330,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 395 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 91% of its contemporaries.