↓ Skip to main content

Exercise training modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
815 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
Exercise training modalities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0703-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bei Pan, Long Ge, Yang-qin Xun, Ya-jing Chen, Cai-yun Gao, Xue Han, Li-qian Zuo, Hou-qian Shan, Ke-hu Yang, Guo-wu Ding, Jin-hui Tian

Abstract

Current international guidelines recommend aerobic, resistance, and combined exercises for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In our study, we conducted a network meta-analysis to assess the comparative impact of different exercise training modalities on glycemic control, cardiovascular risk factors, and weight loss in patients with T2DM. We searched five electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the differences between different exercise training modalities for patients with T2DM. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool. Network meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference the ratio of the mean and absolute risk differences. Data were analyzed using R-3.4.0. A total of 37 studies with 2208 patients with T2DM were included in our study. Both supervised aerobic and supervised resistance exercises showed a significant reduction in HbA1c compared to no exercise (0.30% lower, 0.30% lower, respectively), however, there was a less reduction when compared to combined exercise (0.17% higher, 0.23% higher). Supervised aerobic also presented more significant improvement than no exercise in fasting plasma glucose (9.38 mg/dl lower), total cholesterol (20.24 mg/dl lower), triacylglycerol (19.34 mg/dl lower), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (11.88 mg/dl lower). Supervised resistance showed more benefit than no exercise in improving systolic blood pressure (3.90 mmHg lower]) and total cholesterol (22.08 mg/dl lower]. In addition, supervised aerobic exercise was more powerful in improving HbA1c and weight loss than unsupervised aerobic (HbA1c: 0.60% lower; weight loss: 5.02 kg lower) and unsupervised resistance (HbA1c: 0.53% lower) exercises. Compared with either supervised aerobic or supervised resistance exercise alone, combined exercise showed more pronounced improvement in HbA1c levels; however, there was a less marked improvement in some cardiovascular risk factors. In terms of weight loss, there were no significant differences among the combined, supervised aerobic, and supervised resistance exercises. Our study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO); registration number: CRD42017067518 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 815 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 815 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 125 15%
Student > Master 75 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 6%
Researcher 43 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 4%
Other 120 15%
Unknown 371 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 112 14%
Sports and Recreations 103 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 2%
Other 59 7%
Unknown 388 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 31 January 2023.
All research outputs
#734,014
of 24,171,511 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#227
of 2,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,501
of 334,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,171,511 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 334,091 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.