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 |
Modern insulins, old paradigms and pragmatism: choosing wisely when deciding how to treat type 1 diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13098-015-0033-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Beatriz D Schaan, Rafael Selbach Scheffel |
| Abstract |
There is a clinical imperative to improve metabolic control in the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes, but in doing so, hypoglycemia should be avoided at all costs. Insulin analogues and the assumption they would better mimic the pharmacokinetic profile of endogenous insulin secretion emerged as a magic bullet in the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes. However, although insulin analogues have pharmaceutical properties, such as pharmacodynamic stability, reproducibility of action, and a more physiological timing of action, which could possibly facilitate insulin use, the results obtained in clinical practice have not been as good as expected. Like all clinical decisions, the decision regarding which insulin would be better for the patient should be, if possible, evidence based. Here, we briefly discuss evidence for the use of insulin analogues and the different views with respect to the available evidence that lead to different interpretations and decisions regarding the use of this new technology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 25% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,754,724
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#434
of 666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,964
of 265,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.