↓ Skip to main content

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre‐existing diabetes and their infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
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.
Title
Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre‐existing diabetes and their infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012948
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda M Biesty, Aoife M Egan, Fidelma Dunne, Valerie Smith, Pauline Meskell, Eugene Dempsey, G Meabh Ni Bhuinneain, Declan Devane

Abstract

Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) have increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term, because of increased perinatal mortality during the third trimester of pregnancy.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2) and a sister review focuses on women with gestational diabetes. To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth) at or near term gestation (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach, for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We planned to include randomised trials (including those using a cluster-randomised design) and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) which compared planned birth, at or near term, with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two of the review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias in included studies. We will also assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified no eligible published trials for inclusion in this review.We did identify one randomised trial which examined whether expectant management reduced the incidence of caesarean birth in uncomplicated pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (requiring insulin) and with pre-existing diabetes. However, published data from this trial does not differentiate between pre-existing and gestational diabetes, and therefore we excluded this trial. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to reach any conclusions about the health outcomes associated with planned birth, at or near term, compared with an expectant approach for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.This review demonstrates the urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for pregnant women with pre-existing (Type 1 or Type 2) diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 45 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 13%
Student > Master 31 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Researcher 13 5%
Other 43 16%
Unknown 87 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 24%
Unspecified 45 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 14 5%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 91 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 11 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,683,944
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,627
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,417
of 452,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 452,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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 63% of its contemporaries.