↓ Skip to main content

Need for streamlined use of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Diabetology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Need for streamlined use of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes
Published in
Cardiovascular Diabetology, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12933-016-0379-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristiana Vitale, Giuseppe M. C. Rosano, Krishna Prasad

Abstract

Regulatory agencies request an assessment of cardiovascular safety for all "new" oral anti-diabetic drugs in order to avoid possible negative effects on cardiovascular events. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have emerged as a new therapeutic alternative for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, but the several large post-marketing clinical trials have shown only a modest effect in glycaemic control and, more importantly, a neutral effect on total and cardiovascular events. Conversely a recent trial with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, has shown significant effect on overall and cardiovascular mortality. Although glycaemic control is an important aspect of diabetes management, the results of the EMPA-REG outcome trial suggest that it is possible to develop anti-diabetic drugs that may exert an overall beneficial effect beyond the mere improvement of glycaemic control. While the regulatory hurdles should not be increased, there is the need for evaluation of the net clinical impact and cost effectiveness of all anti-diabetic agents. Therefore, a better collaboration among all stakeholders is needed in order to develop studies with endpoints that will be both clinically meaningful including appropriate follow-up, and economically relevant in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,724,101
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#785
of 1,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,615
of 301,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Diabetology
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 301,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.