↓ 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
42 tweeters
4 Facebook pages
1 Google+ user


176 Dimensions

Readers on

160 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Chile 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 151 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 17%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 48 30%
Unknown 16 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 25 16%