↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Relevance of positive cardiovascular outcome trial results in clinical practice: perspectives from the Academy for Cardiovascular Risk, Outcomes and Safety Studies in Type 2 Diabetes (ACROSS T2D)

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Relevance of positive cardiovascular outcome trial results in clinical practice: perspectives from the Academy for Cardiovascular Risk, Outcomes and Safety Studies in Type 2 Diabetes (ACROSS T2D)
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s144362
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guntram Schernthaner, Kamlesh Khunti, Chaim Lotan, Michel Burnier, Heinz Drexel, Martin Prázný

Abstract

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) imposes a substantial disease burden, predominantly from cardiovascular disease (CVD), which accounts for >50% of deaths in this population and leads to a 12-year reduction in the life expectancy of a 60-year-old male patient with T2D and CVD compared with the general population. The results from mandatory cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) are therefore of great interest in the field. The Academy for Cardiovascular Risk, Outcomes and Safety Studies in Type 2 Diabetes meeting program aims to bring together experts from several associated disciplines to provide fair and balanced resources for those involved in the management of patients with T2D. This publication represents the opinions of the faculty on the key learnings from the meeting held in Vienna in the spring of 2017. In particular, we detail how data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® [cardiovascular outcomes trial of empagliflozin] and Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER®) (liraglutide) CVOTs can be practically interpreted across clinical specialities. It is hoped that this translation of CVOT data will achieve a dual treatment paradigm for the management of both raised glucose levels and CV risk in patients with T2D.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 19%
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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,935
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.