| Title |
Frequency of tuberculosis among diabetic patients in the People's Republic of China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s38872 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hong-Tian Wang, Jing Zhang, Ling-Chao Ji, Shao-Hua You, Yin Bai, Wei Dai, Zhong-Yuan Wang |
| Abstract |
The People's Republic of China has nearly the highest incidence of both diabetes mellitus (DM) and tuberculosis (TB) worldwide. DM increases the risk of TB by two to three times and adversely affects TB treatment outcomes. The increasing epidemic of DM in the People's Republic of China is due to decreased physical activity, unhealthy diet, and obesity. Over the last 20 years, the excellent free China National Tuberculosis Program has been set up, and the "DOTS" (directly observed treatment + short-course chemotherapy) model for TB control has successfully reduced the burden of TB, but the disease is still a considerable problem. Given the high burden of TB and DM in the People's Republic of China and the relationship between the two diseases, it is sensible to screen DM patients for TB. A bidirectional screening of the two diseases was conducted in the People's Republic of China from 2011 to 2012, which identified a TB incidence in patients with DM of about 958 per 100,000. Here, we report the findings of our recent study on the incidence of TB among diabetic patients in the People's Republic of China. The data agree with those of previous reports. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2014.
All research outputs
#14,519,165
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#585
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,365
of 320,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 320,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.