↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0187-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manel Pladevall, Nuria Riera-Guardia, Andrea V Margulis, Cristina Varas-Lorenzo, Brian Calingaert, Susana Perez-Gutthann

Abstract

The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose-lowering drugs (NIBGLD). We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I (2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted. The summary relative risk (sRR) (95 % CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04-1.24) [I (2)  = 55 %]. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced [I (2)  = 16 %]. The sRR (95 % CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02-1.36) [I (2)  = 42 %]. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I (2)  ≥ 70 %). The sRR (95 % CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14-1.34) [I (2)  = 41 %] and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75-1.38) [I (2)  = 17 %]. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons. Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24 % compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 July 2018.
All research outputs
#11,563,992
of 19,899,588 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#482
of 1,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,734
of 362,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,899,588 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,318 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 362,885 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 53% 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