↓ Skip to main content

Insulin for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
315 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
Insulin for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012037.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Brown, Luke Grzeskowiak, Kathryn Williamson, Michelle R Downie, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with short- and long-term complications for the mother and her infant. Women who are unable to maintain their blood glucose concentration within pre-specified treatment targets with diet and lifestyle interventions will require anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. This review explores the safety and effectiveness of insulin compared with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies, non-pharmacological interventions and insulin regimens. To evaluate the effects of insulin in treating women with gestational diabetes. We searched Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 May 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials (including those published in abstract form) comparing:a) insulin with an oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy;b) with a non-pharmacological intervention;c) different insulin analogues;d) different insulin regimens for treating women with diagnosed with GDM.We excluded quasi-randomised and trials including women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We included 53 relevant studies (103 publications), reporting data for 7381 women. Forty-six of these studies reported data for 6435 infants but our analyses were based on fewer number of studies/participants.Overall, the risk of bias was unclear; 40 of the 53 included trials were not blinded. Overall, the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality. The primary reasons for downgrading evidence were imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency. We report the results for our maternal and infant GRADE outcomes for the main comparison. Insulin versus oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapyFor the mother, insulin was associated with an increased risk for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (not defined) compared to oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; four studies, 1214 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference between those who had been treated with insulin and those who had been treated with an oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy for the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 studies, 2060 women; moderate-quality evidence); the risk of birth by caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 studies, 1988 women; moderate-quality evidence); or the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (metformin only) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.44; two studies, 754 women; moderate-quality evidence). The risk of undergoing induction of labour for those treated with insulin compared with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy may possibly be increased, although the evidence was not clear (average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; three studies, 348 women; I² = 32%; moderate-quality of evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in postnatal weight retention between women treated with insulin and those treated with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapy (metformin) at six to eight weeks postpartum (MD -1.60 kg, 95% CI -6.34 to 3.14; one study, 167 women; low-quality evidence) or one year postpartum (MD -3.70, 95% CI -8.50 to 1.10; one study, 176 women; low-quality evidence). The outcomes of perineal trauma/tearing or postnatal depression were not reported in the included studies.For the infant, there was no evidence of a clear difference between those whose mothers had been treated with insulin and those treated with oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies for the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 studies, 2352 infants; moderate-quality evidence); the risk of perinatal (fetal and neonatal death) mortality (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.49; 10 studies, 1463 infants; low-quality evidence);, for the risk of death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; two studies, 760 infants; moderate-quality evidence); the risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 24 studies, 3892 infants; low-quality evidence); neonatal adiposity at birth (% fat mass) (mean difference (MD) 1.6%, 95% CI -3.77 to 0.57; one study, 82 infants; moderate-quality evidence); neonatal adiposity at birth (skinfold sum/mm) (MD 0.8 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.73; random-effects; one study, 82 infants; very low-quality evidence); or childhood adiposity (total percentage fat mass) (MD 0.5%; 95% CI -0.49 to 1.49; one study, 318 children; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence also found no clear differences between groups for rates of neurosensory disabilities in later childhood: hearing impairment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.49; one study, 93 children), visual impairment (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.90; one study, 93 children), or any mild developmental delay (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.44; one study, 93 children). Later infant mortality, and childhood diabetes were not reported as outcomes in the included studies.We also looked at comparisons for regular human insulin versus other insulin analogues, insulin versus diet/standard care, insulin versus exercise and comparisons of insulin regimens, however there was insufficient evidence to determine any differences for many of the key health outcomes. Please refer to the main results for more information about these comparisons. The main comparison in this review is insulin versus oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. Insulin and oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies have similar effects on key health outcomes. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, with downgrading decisions due to imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency.For the other comparisons of this review (insulin compared with non-pharmacological interventions, different insulin analogies or different insulin regimens), there is insufficient volume of high-quality evidence to determine differences for key health outcomes.Long-term maternal and neonatal outcomes were poorly reported for all comparisons.The evidence suggests that there are minimal harms associated with the effects of treatment with either insulin or oral anti-diabetic pharmacological therapies. The choice to use one or the other may be down to physician or maternal preference, availability or severity of GDM. Further research is needed to explore optimal insulin regimens. Further research could aim to report data for standardised GDM outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 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 315 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 313 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 70 22%
Student > Master 60 19%
Researcher 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 10%
Other 85 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 34%
Unspecified 93 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 13%
Psychology 23 7%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Other 38 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 14 August 2019.
All research outputs
#415,582
of 13,511,623 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,231
of 10,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,284
of 313,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,511,623 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 313,185 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.