↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Insulin administration: present strategies and future directions for a noninvasive (possibly more physiological) delivery

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
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
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Insulin administration: present strategies and future directions for a noninvasive (possibly more physiological) delivery
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s79322
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Matteucci, Ottavio Giampietro, Vera Covolan, Daniela Giustarini, Paolo Fanti, Ranieri Rossi

Abstract

Insulin is a life-saving medication for people with type 1 diabetes, but traditional insulin replacement therapy is based on multiple daily subcutaneous injections or continuous subcutaneous pump-regulated infusion. Nonphysiologic delivery of subcutaneous insulin implies a rapid and sustained increase in systemic insulin levels due to the loss of concentration gradient between portal and systemic circulations. In fact, the liver degrades about half of the endogenous insulin secreted by the pancreas into the venous portal system. The reverse insulin distribution has short- and long-term effects on glucose metabolism. Thus, researchers have explored less-invasive administration routes based on innovative pharmaceutical formulations, which preserve hormone stability and ensure the therapeutic effectiveness. This review examines some of the recent proposals from clinical and material chemistry point of view, giving particular attention to patients' (and diabetologists') ideal requirements that organic chemistry could meet.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Researcher 14 10%
Other 7 5%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 31 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 15%
Chemistry 11 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 34 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,105
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,503
of 281,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#67
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 281,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.