↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Management of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild/moderate renal impairment: profile of linagliptin

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Management of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild/moderate renal impairment: profile of linagliptin
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s67076
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baptist Gallwitz

Abstract

Dipeptidyl-peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors are oral antidiabetic agents that can be administered as monotherapy in patients with contraindications to metformin or metformin intolerance, and in combination with other oral compounds and/or insulin. DPP-4 inhibitors act in a glucose-dependent manner and only increase insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion under hyperglycemic conditions. Renal impairment is frequent in type 2 diabetes as a result of microvascular complications and diabetes treatment, and options in these patients are limited. Linagliptin is a DPP-4 inhibitor with a hepatobiliary route of elimination. In comparative studies, it was noninferior to metformin and sulfonylureas in lowering glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and improving glycemic parameters. It can be used throughout all stages of renal impairment without dose adjustments. This review gives an overview of linagliptin in various stages of chronic kidney disease and has a focus on efficacy and safety parameters from clinical studies in patients with impaired renal function. These data are interpreted in the context of type 2 diabetes therapy in general.

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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Other 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Lecturer 1 2%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 22%
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 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,716
of 278,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#27
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 278,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.