↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes under different antidiabetic treatment regimens: a retrospective database analysis in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Fracture risk in patients with type 2 diabetes under different antidiabetic treatment regimens: a retrospective database analysis in primary care
Published in
Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy, February 2016
DOI 10.2147/dmso.s101370
Pubmed ID
Authors

S Pscherer, K Kostev, FW Dippel, W Rathmann

Abstract

Type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of fractures. There are a few studies on the effects of diabetes treatment on fracture risk. The aim was to investigate the fracture risk related to various types of insulin therapy in primary care practices. Data from 105,960 type 2 diabetes patients from 1,072 general and internal medicine practices in Germany were retrospectively analyzed (Disease Analyzer database; 01/2000-12/2013). Fracture risk of the following therapies was compared using multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, diabetes care, comorbidity, and glycemic control (HbAlc): 1) incident insulin therapy versus oral antidiabetic drugs, 2) basal-supported oral therapy versus supplementary insulin therapy versus conventional insulin therapy, and 3) insulin glargine versus insulin detemir versus NPH insulin. There was a lower odds of having incident fractures in the oral antidiabetic drug group compared to incident insulin users, although not significant (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval: 0.87; 0.72-1.06). There were increased odds for conventional insulin therapy (OR: 1.59; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.89-2.84) and supplementary insulin therapy (OR: 1.20; 0.63-2.27) compared to basal-supported oral therapy, which was not significant as well. Overall, there was no significant difference in fracture risk for basal insulins (glargine, detemir, NPH insulin). After a treatment duration ≥2 years, insulin glargine showed a lower odds of having ≥1 fracture compared to NPH users (OR: 0.78; 0.65-0.95) (detemir vs NPH insulin: OR: 1.03; 0.79-1.36). Long-standing therapy with insulin glargine was associated with a lower odds of having any fractures compared to NPH insulin. Further studies are required to investigate whether the lower chance is due to a reduced frequency of hypoglycemia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,635,558
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#126
of 1,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,047
of 408,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 408,830 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.