↓ Skip to main content

Glucagon and heart in type 2 diabetes: new perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters
1 patent
1 Facebook page


45 Dimensions

Readers on

83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Glucagon and heart in type 2 diabetes: new perspectives
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12933-016-0440-3
Pubmed ID

Antonio Ceriello, Stefano Genovese, Edoardo Mannucci, Edoardo Gronda


Increased levels of glucagon in type 2 diabetes are well known and, until now, have been considered deleterious. However, glucagon has an important role in the maintenance of both heart and kidney function. Moreover, in the past, glucagon has been therapeutically used for heart failure treatment. The new antidiabetic drugs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, are able to decrease and to increase glucagon levels, respectively, while contrasting data have been reported regarding the glucagon like peptide 1 receptors agonists. The cardiovascular outcome trials, requested by the FDA, raised some concerns about the possibility that the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can precipitate the heart failure, while, at least for empagliflozin, a positive effect has been shown in decreasing both cardiovascular death and heart failure. The recent LEADER Trial, showed a significant reduction of cardiovascular death with liraglutide, but a neutral effect on heart failure. A possible explanation of the results with the DPPIV inhibitors and empagliflozin might be related to their divergent effect on glucagon levels. Due to unclear effects of glucagon like peptide 1 receptor agonists on glucagon, the possible role of this hormone in the Leader trial remains unclear.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Other 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 21 25%

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 04 August 2021.
All research outputs
of 21,351,971 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 286,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,351,971 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 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 286,375 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them