The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Impact of Antidepressant Therapy on Glycemic Control in Canadian Primary Care Patients With Diabetes Mellitus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Nutrition, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnut.2018.00047 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Justin Gagnon, Marie-Thérèse Lussier, Brenda MacGibbon, Stella S. Daskalopoulou, Gillian Bartlett |
| Abstract |
Context: Depression is common in people with diabetes and is associated with poor glycemic control. Evidence suggests that certain antidepressants (AD) increase the risk of poor control. Few population-based studies have examined the impact of individual ADs on glycemic control. This study's objective is to measure the impact of Citalopram, Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, Trazodone and Escitalopram on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in Canadian primary care patients with diabetes. Methods: A retrospective study of electronic medical records (EMR) from 115 primary care practices across Canada was undertaken. Data were obtained from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). The sample population comprised 1,084 diabetic patients with 1,127 prescriptions of one of the five selected ADs and with baseline and post-exposure HbA1c measurements. Generalized linear mixed models were computed to estimate the effect of the ADs on HbA1c. Results: Mean HbA1c ratios for Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, Trazodone and Escitalopram were all numerically lower than Citalopram. The confidence intervals included the minimum detectable effect, however the differences were not statistically significant. The lowest clinically relevant HbA1c ratios, relative to Citalopram, were found in patients prescribed Trazodone and Escitalopram. Accounting for the prescription of Trazodone for indications other than depression, this research suggests that Escitalopram may be safer than Citalopram for people with diabetes and depression, in terms of its effect on blood glucose. Conclusion: This study can inform future research examining the relationship between ADs and blood glucose and provides insight into the limitations pertaining to the use of health data in health research. Future research should seek to control for, across multiple time points: depression symptoms, depression severity, depression duration, weight, diabetes medication, tobacco and alcohol consumption and other medications with a known impact on blood glucose. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 29% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#21,446,352
of 26,317,969 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#4,636
of 7,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,691
of 344,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#25
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,317,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 344,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.