↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Evidence to support the use of vildagliptin monotherapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Evidence to support the use of vildagliptin monotherapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2012
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s31758
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvie Dejager, Anja Schweizer, James E Foley

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, as monotherapy have been widely confirmed in a large body of clinical studies of up to 2 years' duration in various populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of vildagliptin in monotherapy. Consideration based on baseline glycated hemoglobin levels and age is given to patient segments where metformin is not appropriate. In addition, although prediabetes is not an indication, this manuscript briefly reviews some of the existing data showing that the mechanisms at work in diabetic populations are active in patients currently classified as prediabetic, with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose. Finally, the rationale for vildagliptin dosing frequency in monotherapy is discussed. In summary, this review aims to define where in community practice the use of vildagliptin as monotherapy is most desirable, focusing on segments of the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus that might receive the greatest benefit from vildagliptin in the management of their disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Colombia 1 2%
India 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Master 8 20%
Other 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 5 12%

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 20 May 2012.
All research outputs
#6,939,498
of 12,073,561 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#281
of 518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,934
of 112,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#6
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,073,561 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 518 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 112,920 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 16 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 56% of its contemporaries.