↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Inertia in Individualising Care for Diabetes: Is There Time to do More in Type 2 Diabetes?

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Inertia in Individualising Care for Diabetes: Is There Time to do More in Type 2 Diabetes?
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13300-014-0077-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

William David Strain, Matthias Blüher, Païvi Paldánius

Abstract

Clinical inertia is defined as the failure to establish appropriate targets and escalate treatment to achieve treatment goals. It accounts for a significant proportion of failure to achieve targets in the management of diabetes and contributes to up to 200,000 adverse diabetes- related outcomes per year. Despite a growing awareness of the phenomenon, and newer, better-tolerated agents for the control of diabetes, there has been little improvement over the last decade in the prevalence of clinical inertia. Although common-place in clinical practice, clinical inertia does not appear to affect clinical trials. There are lessons that may be translated from these randomised controlled trials to clinical practice, which that may improve the care for those with diabetes. Key amongst these interventions are good education, clear treatment strategy and more time for interaction between physician and patients, all of which appears to reduce clinical inertia as evidenced by the "placebo effect" of clinical trials. We plan to review here, the lessons that can be learnt from clinical trials and how these may translate to better care for people with diabetes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 41 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Unspecified 8 18%
Other 8 18%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 48%
Unspecified 8 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 6 14%

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 12 August 2014.
All research outputs
#7,801,318
of 12,434,754 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#191
of 415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,937
of 195,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,434,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 195,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them