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 |
Does self monitoring of blood glucose as opposed to urinalysis provide additional benefit in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes receiving structured education? The DESMOND SMBG randomised controlled trial protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2296-13-18 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helen M Dallosso, Helen C Eborall, Heather Daly, Lorraine Martin-Stacey, Jane Speight, Kathryn Realf, Marian E Carey, Michael J Campbell, Simon Dixon, Kamlesh Khunti, Melanie J Davies, Simon Heller |
| Abstract |
The benefit of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with type 2 diabetes on diet or oral agents other than sulphonylureas remains uncertain. Trials of interventions incorporating education about self-monitoring of blood glucose have reported mixed results. A recent systematic review concluded that SMBG was not cost-effective. However, what was unclear was whether a cheaper method of self-monitoring (such as urine glucose monitoring) could produce comparable benefit and patient acceptability for less cost. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 183 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 15% |
| Researcher | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 35 | 19% |
| Unknown | 39 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 10% |
| Psychology | 15 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 43 | 23% |
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 08 November 2013.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,954
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,289
of 168,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 168,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.