↓ Skip to main content

Differentiating among incretin-based therapies in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Differentiating among incretin-based therapies in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1758-5996-4-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Cobble

Abstract

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have become important options for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. While the GLP-1R agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors act on the incretin system to regulate glucose homeostasis, there are important clinical differences among the five agents currently available in the U.S. For example, the GLP-1R agonists require subcutaneous administration, produce pharmacological levels of GLP-1 activity, promote weight loss, have a more robust glucose-lowering effect, and have a higher incidence of adverse gastrointestinal effects. In contrast, the DPP-4 inhibitors are taken orally, increase the half-life of endogenous GLP-1, are weight neutral, and are more commonly associated with nasopharyngitis. Differences in efficacy, safety, tolerability, and cost among the incretin-based therapies are important to consider in the primary care management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 32%
Other 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 14%

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 07 March 2012.
All research outputs
#4,647,416
of 8,622,362 outputs
Outputs from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#161
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,412
of 95,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,622,362 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 95,477 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.