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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prevalence of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome: the utility of easily reproducible screening methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Endocrine Disorders, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12902-017-0153-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Muhammad A. Karamat, Umar Y. Raja, Susan E. Manley, Alan Jones, Wasim Hanif, Abd A. Tahrani |
| Abstract |
Despite the recognition of the importance of diagnosing dysglycaemia in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) there remains a lack of consensus on the best screening modality. Our primary aims were to determine the prevalence of undiagnosed dysglycaemia and to compare the OGTT and HbA1c criteria for diagnosis of T2DM in patients admitted to hospital with ACS at baseline and at 3-months. We also aimed to investigate the role of a screening algorithm and a predictor score to define glucose tolerance in this population. A prospective study in which patients admitted with ACS to two UK teaching hospitals were assessed at baseline and 3 months follow-up. The prevalence of diabetes at baseline was 20% and 16% based on OGTT and HbA1c criteria respectively. Forty three (43) % of the patients with T2DM based on OGTT would have been missed by the HbA1c criteria at baseline. Our screening algorithm identified 87% of patients with T2DM diagnosed with OGTT. Diabetes Predictor score had better sensitivity (>80%) and negative predictive value (>90%) compared to HbA1c criteria. Two thirds of participants with IGS and a third with T2DM changed their glycaemic status at 3 months. Only 48% of the patients admitted with ACS had normo-glycaemia based on OGTT. OGTT and HbA1c identified two different populations of patients with dysglycaemia with the HbA1c criteria missing almost half the patients with T2DM based on OGTT. Compared to HbA1c criteria our diabetes algorithm and diabetes predictor score had a better correlation with OGTT criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Denmark | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,841,171
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Endocrine Disorders
#206
of 766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,521
of 419,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Endocrine Disorders
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 419,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.