↓ Skip to main content

Control of glycemia and blood pressure in British adults with diabetes mellitus and subsequent therapy choices: a comparison across health states

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, February 2018
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.
Title
Control of glycemia and blood pressure in British adults with diabetes mellitus and subsequent therapy choices: a comparison across health states
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12933-018-0673-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Finlay A. McAlister, Brendan Cord Lethebe, Caitlin Lambe, Tyler Williamson, Mark Lowerison

Abstract

To examine the intensity of glycemic and blood pressure control in British adults with diabetes mellitus and whether control levels or treatment deintensification rates differ across health states. Retrospective cohort study using primary care electronic medical records (the United Kingdom Health Improvement Network Database) for adults with diabetes diagnosed at least 6 months before the index HbA1C and systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements (to give their primary care physicians time to achieve treatment goals). We used prescribing records for 6 months pre/post the index measurements to determine who had therapy subsequently deintensified (based on "glycemic therapy score" and "antihypertensive therapy score" derived from number and dosage of medications). Of 292,170 individuals with diabetes, HbA1C < 6% or SBP < 120 mmHg after at least 6 months of management was less common in otherwise fit patients (15.0 and 12.7%) than in those who were mildly frail (16.6 and 13.2%) or moderately-severely frail (20.2 and 17.0%, both p < 0.0001). In the next 6 months, only 44.7% of those with HbA1C < 6% had glycemic therapy reduced (44.4% of fit, 47.1% of mildly frail, and 41.5% of moderate-severely frail patients) and 39.8% of those with SBP < 120 had their antihypertensives decreased (39.3% of fit, 43.0% of mildly frail, and 46.7% of moderate-severely frail patients). On the other hand, more individuals exhibited higher than recommended levels for HbA1C or SBP after the first 6 months of therapy (37.3, 33.4, and 31.3% of fit, mildly frail, and moderately-severely frail patients had HbA1C > 7.5% and 46.6, 51.4, and 48.5% had SBP > 140 mmHg). The proportions of patients with HbA1C or SBP out of recommended treatment ranges changed little 6 months later despite frequent (median 14 per year) primary care visits. Glycemic and hypertensive control exhibited statistically significant but small magnitude differences across frailty states. Medication deintensification was uncommon, even in frail patients below SBP and HbA1C targets. SBP levels were more likely to be outside recommended treatment ranges than glycemic levels. Trial registration As this study is a retrospective secondary analysis of electronic medical record data and not a health care intervention trial it was not registered.

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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 17%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 22 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,253,131
of 18,593,253 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#131
of 1,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,473
of 385,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,593,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 385,077 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 83% 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