↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
225 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
648 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

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 648 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 636 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 115 18%
Student > Bachelor 95 15%
Researcher 69 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 10%
Other 50 8%
Other 140 22%
Unknown 116 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 298 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 12%
Social Sciences 25 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 3%
Other 79 12%
Unknown 135 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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
#1,082,879
of 18,966,736 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,698
of 11,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,858
of 196,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#56
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,966,736 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 11,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 196,329 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 198 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.