↓ Skip to main content

Challenges in recruiting subjects to a pilot trial of patient-managed in-hospital insulin

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Challenges in recruiting subjects to a pilot trial of patient-managed in-hospital insulin
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1480-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily K. Acton, Charles E. Leonard, Mark H. Schutta, Serena Cardillo, Andrea B. Troxel, Rebecca Trotta, Sean Hennessy

Abstract

To examine the feasibility of implementing clinician-supported inpatient self-managed insulin to aid in the planning of a randomized clinical trial. We conducted a proof-of-concept interventional study of inpatients with diabetes mellitus who had hospital orders for basal-bolus or sliding scale insulin. Patients meeting inclusion criteria were offered the opportunity to manage their own basal-bolus insulin with support from a diabetes nurse practitioner. Over a three-month screening period, we conducted 361 screens in 336 patients, only eleven of whom met all inclusion criteria. None of these eleven eligible patients elected to enroll. The most common reason for refusal was lack of interest in self-managing insulin while acutely ill (36 %). Future studies of patient-managed in-hospital insulin should consider enrolling less acutely ill patients with longer anticipated lengths of stay. NCT02144441.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 53%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#15,348,067
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,314
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,899
of 274,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#97
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 274,923 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.