↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Low glycaemic index, or low glycaemic load, diets for diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
265 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
534 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
3 Connotea
Title
Low glycaemic index, or low glycaemic load, diets for diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006296.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Thomas, Elizabeth J Elliott

Abstract

The aim of diabetes management is to normalise blood glucose levels, since improved blood glucose control is associated with reduction in development, and progression, of complications. Nutritional factors affect blood glucose levels, however there is currently no universal approach to the optimal dietary treatment for diabetes. There is controversy about how useful the glycaemic index (GI) is in diabetic meal planning. Improved glycaemic control through diet could minimise medications, lessen risk of diabetic complications, improve quality of life and increase life expectancy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 534 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 513 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 103 19%
Student > Bachelor 100 19%
Researcher 62 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 9%
Student > Postgraduate 40 7%
Other 110 21%
Unknown 73 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 205 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 88 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 4%
Sports and Recreations 15 3%
Other 57 11%
Unknown 88 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 84. 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 23 December 2020.
All research outputs
#339,882
of 19,342,442 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#666
of 11,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,457
of 128,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,342,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 128,072 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.