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 |
Aerobic Interval Training and Cardiometabolic Health in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00957 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shanhu Qiu, Xue Cai, Zilin Sun, Martina Zügel, Jürgen M. Steinacker, Uwe Schumann |
| Abstract |
Vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training (INT) has received remarkable interest in improving cardiometabolic outcomes for type 2 diabetes patients recently, yet with inconsistent findings. This meta-analysis was aimed to quantify its effectiveness in type 2 diabetes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by searches of 3 databases to October 2017, which evaluated the effects of INT with a minimal training duration of 8 weeks vs. moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or non-exercise training (NET) among type 2 diabetes patients on outcomes including cardiorespiratory fitness, glycemic control, body composition, blood pressure, and lipid profiles. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with the random-effects model. Nine datasets from 7 RCTs with 189 patients were included. Compared with MICT, INT improved maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) by 2.60 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 1.32 to 3.88 ml/kg/min, P <0.001) and decreased hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) by 0.26% (95% CI: -0.46% to -0.07%, P = 0.008). These outcomes for INT were also significant vs. energy expenditure-matched MICT, with VO2max increased by 2.18 ml/kg/min (P = 0.04) and HbA1c decreased by 0.28% (P = 0.01). Yet their magnitudes of changes were larger compared with NET, with VO2max increased by 6.38 ml/kg/min (P <0.001) and HbA1c reduced by 0.83% (P = 0.004). Systolic blood pressure could be lowered by INT compared with energy expenditure-matched MICT or NET (both P <0.05), but other cardiometabolic markers and body composition were not significantly altered in general. In conclusion, despite a limited number of studies, INT improves cardiometabolic health especially for VO2max and HbA1c among patients with type 2 diabetes, and might be considered an alternative to MICT. Yet the optimal training protocols still require to be established. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 9 | 21% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 14% |
| Canada | 6 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 2% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 22 | 52% |
| Scientists | 15 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 32 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 17 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 36 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,292,200
of 24,513,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#711
of 15,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,659
of 447,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#34
of 339 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,513,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,070 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. 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 447,613 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 339 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 90% of its contemporaries.