↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hormonal versus non-hormonal contraceptives in women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
Title
Hormonal versus non-hormonal contraceptives in women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003990.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jantien Visser, Marieke Snel, Huib AAM Van Vliet

Abstract

Adequate contraceptive advice is important in both women with diabetes mellitus type 1 and type 2 to reduce the risk of maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in unplanned pregnancies. A wide variety of contraceptives are available for these women. However, hormonal contraceptives might influence carbohydrate and lipid metabolism and increase micro- and macrovascular complications, so caution in selecting a contraceptive method is required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Other 13 6%
Other 42 20%
Unknown 46 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 10%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 49 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,390,131
of 17,349,416 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,058
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,225
of 161,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,349,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 161,792 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 50% of its contemporaries.