↓ 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
291 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
592 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 18 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 592 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Other 6 1%
Unknown 572 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 107 18%
Student > Bachelor 107 18%
Researcher 64 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 8%
Student > Postgraduate 40 7%
Other 121 20%
Unknown 104 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 210 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 95 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 4%
Social Sciences 15 3%
Other 68 11%
Unknown 118 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 28 September 2022.
All research outputs
#418,881
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#765
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,310
of 170,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 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 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 170,315 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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 96% of its contemporaries.