↓ Skip to main content

Oral anti-diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes planning pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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
Oral anti-diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes planning pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007724.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Tieu, Suzette Coat, William Hague, Philippa Middleton, Emily Shepherd

Abstract

While most guidance recommends the use of insulin in women whose pregnancies are affected by pre-existing diabetes, oral anti-diabetic agents may be more acceptable to women. The effects of these oral anti-diabetic agents on maternal and infant health outcomes need to be established in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, as well as in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus preconceptionally or during a subsequent pregnancy. To investigate the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, on maternal and infant health. The use of oral anti-diabetic agents for the management of gestational diabetes in a current pregnancy is evaluated in a separate Cochrane Review. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who were planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Review authors checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We identified six RCTs (707 women), eligible for inclusion in this review, however, three RCTs had mixed populations (that is, they included pregnant women with gestational diabetes) and did not report data separately for the relevant subset of women for this review. Therefore we have only included outcome data from three RCTs; data were available for 241 women and their infants. The three RCTs all compared an oral anti-diabetic agent (metformin) with insulin. The women in the RCTs that contributed data had type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy. Overall, the RCTs were judged to be at varying risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence for selected important outcomes using GRADE; the evidence was low- or very low-quality, due to downgrading because of design limitations (risk of bias) and imprecise effect estimates (for many outcomes only one or two RCTs contributed data).For our primary outcomes there was no clear difference between metformin and insulin groups for pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.20; RCTs = 2; participants = 227; very low-quality evidence) although in one RCT women receiving metformin were less likely to have pregnancy-induced hypertension (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; low-quality evidence). Women receiving metformin were less likely to have a caesarean section compared with those receiving insulin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; RCTs = 3; participants = 241; low-quality evidence). In one RCT there was no clear difference between groups for large-for-gestational-age infants (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.72; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; very low-quality evidence). There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (very low-quality evidence). Neonatal mortality or morbidity composite outcome and childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability were not reported.For other secondary outcomes we assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between metformin and insulin groups for induction of labour (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.28; RCTs = 2; participants = 35; very low-quality evidence), though infant hypoglycaemia was reduced in the metformin group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.62; RCTs = 3; infants = 241; very low-quality evidence). Perineal trauma, maternal postnatal depression and postnatal weight retention, and childhood/adulthood adiposity and diabetes were not reported. There are insufficient RCT data to evaluate the use of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests possible reductions in pregnancy-induced hypertension, caesarean section birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia with metformin compared with insulin for women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy, and no clear differences in pre-eclampsia, induction of labour and babies that are large-for-gestational age. Further high-quality RCTs that compare any combination of oral anti-diabetic agent, insulin and dietary and lifestyle advice for these women are needed. Future RCTs could be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term clinical outcomes; such RCTs could attempt to collect and report on the standard outcomes suggested in this review. We have identified three ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these when this review is updated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 19%
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Researcher 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 38 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 15%
Psychology 14 7%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 51 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#797,832
of 13,309,886 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,559
of 10,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,385
of 311,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,309,886 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 10,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 311,296 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 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 66% of its contemporaries.