↓ Skip to main content

Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 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
Preconception care for diabetic women for improving maternal and infant health
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007776.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Tieu, Philippa Middleton, Caroline A Crowther, Emily Shepherd

Abstract

Infants born to mothers with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus are at greater risk of congenital anomalies, perinatal mortality and significant morbidity in the short and long term. Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes are at greater risk of perinatal morbidity and diabetic complications. The relationship between glycaemic control and health outcomes for both mothers and infants indicates the potential for preconception care for these women to be of benefit. This is an update of the original review, which was first published in 2010. To assess the effects of preconception care in women with diabetes on health outcomes for mothers and their infants. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved articles. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of preconception care for diabetic women. Cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We checked data for accuracy and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included three trials involving 254 adolescent girls with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with an overall unclear to high risk of bias. The three trials were conducted at diabetes clinics in the USA, and assessed the READY-Girls (Reproductive-health Education and Awareness of Diabetes in Youth for Girls) programme versus standard care.Considering primary outcomes, one trial reported no pregnancies in the trial period (12 months) (very low-quality evidence, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision); in the other two trials, pregnancy was an exclusion criterion, or was not clearly reported on. None of the trials reported on the other primary maternal outcomes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean section; or primary infant outcomes, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, death or morbidity composite, or congenital malformations. Similarly, none of the trials reported on the secondary outcomes, for which we had planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach (maternal: induction of labour; perineal trauma; gestational weight gain; long-term cardiovascular health; infant: adiposity; type 1 or 2 diabetes; neurosensory disability).The majority of secondary maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services were not reported by the three included trials. Regarding behaviour changes associated with the intervention, in one trial, participants in the preconception care group had a slightly higher score for the actual initiation of discussion regarding preconception care with healthcare providers at follow-up (nine months), compared with those in the standard care group (mean difference 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.82 (on a scale of 0 to 4 points); participants = 87) (a summation of four dichotomous items; possible range 0 to 4, with 0 being no discussion). There are insufficient RCT data available to assess the effects of preconception care for diabetic women on health outcomes for mothers and their infants.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of different protocols of preconception care for diabetic women. Future trials should be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services. We have identified three ongoing studies that we will consider in the next review update.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 304 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 18%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Student > Postgraduate 22 7%
Other 63 21%
Unknown 65 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 19%
Psychology 15 5%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Other 37 12%
Unknown 79 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,358,104
of 15,663,211 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,969
of 11,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,072
of 272,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,663,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,237 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 272,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.