↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10198-018-1006-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Najmiatul Fitria, Antoinette D. I. van Asselt, Maarten J. Postma

Abstract

Timely screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy using a simple glucose test enhances early detection and control of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of identification and/or treatment of GDM. We conducted a systematic review using three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) of cost-effectiveness studies of GDM screening and treatment published during 2000-2017. The initial search discovered 287 references (PubMed 86, EMBASE 195, Cochrane library 6) of which six full articles were included in the review. Two articles were model-based analysis and the remaining four were trial based. Two studies demonstrated favorable cost-effectiveness of intensified management of mild GDM. In the other included studies, neither screening nor treatment of GDM was shown to be cost effective, although results varied with the particular outcome measures used and the assumptions that where applied. Neither screening nor treating GDM seems to be convincingly cost-effective from the studies reviewed. However, all studies were done in high-income countries with obviously different health systems than low-/middle-income countries (LMIC) have. Since detection of GDM may be relatively poor in LMIC, screening might be more worthwhile in these countries. Comprehensive research is necessary in LMIC, including the potential outcomes of assessing its cost-effectiveness. Favorable cost-effectiveness could help in bridging the need for and access to increased diabetes screening in early pregnancy in these countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 51 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 56 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#838
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,570
of 351,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 351,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.