↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Zinc supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults with insulin resistance

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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

twitter
10 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
395 Mendeley
Title
Zinc supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults with insulin resistance
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005525.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regina El Dib, Orsi LF Gameiro, Matheus SP Ogata, Norma SP Módolo, Leandro G Braz, Eliane C Jorge, Paulo do Nascimento Junior, Vânia Beletate

Abstract

Diabetes is associated with long-term damage, dysfunction and failure of various organs, especially the eyes, kidneys, nerves, heart and blood vessels. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes increases with age, obesity and lack of physical activity. Insulin resistance is a fundamental aspect of the aetiology of type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance has been shown to be associated with atherosclerosis, dyslipidaemia, glucose intolerance, hyperuricaemia, hypertension and polycystic ovary syndrome. The mineral zinc plays a key role in the synthesis and action of insulin, both physiologically and in diabetes mellitus. Zinc seems to stimulate insulin action and insulin receptor tyrosine kinase activity. To assess the effects of zinc supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults with insulin resistance. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane systematic review published in 2007. We searched the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the ICTRP trial register (from inception to March 2015). There were no language restrictions. We conducted citation searches and screened reference lists of included studies. We included studies if they had a randomised or quasi-randomised design and if they investigated zinc supplementation compared with placebo or no intervention in adults with insulin resistance living in the community. Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We included three trials with a total of 128 participants in this review. The duration of zinc supplementation ranged between four and 12 weeks. Risk of bias was unclear for most studies regarding selection bias (random sequence generation, allocation concealment) and detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). No study reported on our key outcome measures (incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, adverse events, health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, diabetic complications, socioeconomic effects). Evaluation of insulin resistance as measured by the Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) showed neutral effects when comparing zinc supplementation with control (two trials; 114 participants). There were neutral effects for trials comparing zinc supplementation with placebo for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides (2 studies, 70 participants). The one trial comparing zinc supplementation with exercise also showed neutral effects for total cholesterol, HDL and LDL cholesterol, and a mean difference in triglycerides of -30 mg/dL (95% confidence interval (CI) -49 to -10) in favour of zinc supplementation (53 participants). Various surrogate laboratory parameters were also analysed in the included trials. There is currently no evidence on which to base the use of zinc supplementation for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Future trials should investigate patient-important outcome measures such as incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, health-related quality of life, diabetic complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 395 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 393 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 19%
Student > Bachelor 50 13%
Researcher 47 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 8%
Other 20 5%
Other 73 18%
Unknown 97 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Social Sciences 12 3%
Other 57 14%
Unknown 118 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 February 2022.
All research outputs
#3,768,783
of 21,839,802 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,240
of 12,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,055
of 250,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,839,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 250,472 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 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.