↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
263 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
753 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Intensive glucose control versus conventional glucose control for type 1 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009122.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Birgit Fullerton, Klaus Jeitler, Mirjam Seitz, Karl Horvath, Andrea Berghold, Andrea Siebenhofer

Abstract

Clinical guidelines differ regarding their recommended blood glucose targets for patients with type 1 diabetes and recent studies on patients with type 2 diabetes suggest that aiming at very low targets can increase the risk of mortality.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 753 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 742 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 121 16%
Student > Bachelor 104 14%
Researcher 73 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 9%
Other 52 7%
Other 156 21%
Unknown 182 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 316 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 82 11%
Social Sciences 24 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 3%
Psychology 18 2%
Other 91 12%
Unknown 200 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,417,073
of 24,488,567 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,158
of 12,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,936
of 324,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#64
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,488,567 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 12,927 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 324,910 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 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 72% of its contemporaries.