↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
303 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Pioglitazone for type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006060.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernd Richter, Elizabeth Bandeira‐Echtler, Karla Bergerhoff, Christine Clar, Susanne H Ebrahim

Abstract

Diabetes has long been recognised as a strong, independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, a problem which accounts for approximately 70% of all mortality in people with diabetes. Prospective studies show that compared to their non-diabetic counterparts, the relative risk of cardiovascular mortality for men with diabetes is two to three and for women with diabetes is three to four. The two biggest trials in type 2 diabetes, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) study did not reveal a reduction of cardiovascular endpoints through improved metabolic control. Theoretical benefits of the newer peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPAR-gamma) activators like pioglitazone on endothelial function and cardiovascular risk factors might result in fewer macrovascular disease events in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 303 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
Italy 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 288 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 57 19%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 70 23%
Unknown 67 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 11%
Psychology 12 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Other 45 15%
Unknown 81 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,575,378
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,135
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,381
of 84,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 84,656 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 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.