↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in this source, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
2 blogs
2 policy sources
31 X users
4 Facebook pages
1 Google+ user


217 Dimensions

Readers on

224 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Targeting intensive glycaemic control versus targeting conventional glycaemic control for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008143.pub3
Pubmed ID

Hemmingsen, Bianca, Lund, Søren S, Gluud, Christian, Vaag, Allan, Almdal, Thomas P, Wetterslev, Jørn


Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality compared to the background population. Observational studies report an association between reduced blood glucose and reduced risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in patients with T2D. Our previous systematic review of intensive glycaemic control versus conventional glycaemic control was based on 20 randomised clinical trials that randomised 29 ,986 participants with T2D. We now report our updated review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 215 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Student > Master 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 7%
Other 58 26%
Unknown 47 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 55 25%