↓ Skip to main content

Exercise for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
312 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
Exercise for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012696.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julie Brown, Gilles Ceysens, Michel Boulvain

Abstract

Pregnancies with pre-existing diabetes are high risk, with increased risk of poorer fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes. Identifying interventions to improving health outcomes for women with diabetes and their infants is a priority, as rates of diabetes continue to increase.Exercise has been shown to have benefits for non-pregnant individuals with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, such as improving glycaemic control, and reducing visceral adipose tissue and plasma triglycerides. For pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, the effects of exercise interventions on the mother and her baby are unknown.An earlier Cochrane review on 'Exercise for pregnant women with diabetes' considered both pre-existing diabetes and gestational diabetes. That Cochrane review has now been split into two new reviews (following new protocols) - one on gestational diabetes and one on pre-existing diabetes (this review). To evaluate the effects of exercise interventions for improving maternal and fetal outcomes in women with pre-existing diabetes. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 27 June 2017, and reference lists of retrieved studies. We had planned to include published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT) or cluster-randomised trials, in full text or abstract format that compared any type of exercise programme, added to standard care, targeted at women with known pre-gestational diabetes (type 1 or type 2 diabetes), at any stage of pregnancy, compared with 1) standard care alone or 2) standard care plus another exercise intervention. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were excluded. Conference abstracts were handled in the same way as full-text publications.Women with gestational diabetes mellitus were excluded, as they were covered in a separate Cochrane review. We had planned that two review authors would independently assess all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. For eligible studies, two review authors would have independently extracted the data using an agreed form. We had planned to resolve discrepancies through discussion, or by consulting a third person. We also had planned to assess the evidence using the GRADE approach. We did not identify any randomised controlled trials. There was no evidence from RCTs that evaluated the effects of exercise interventions for improving maternal and fetal outcomes in women with pre-existing diabetes.Good quality, large randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to identify exercise interventions that are safe, and improve health outcomes for women with pre-existing diabetes and their babies. Future studies in this area could utilise the standardised outcomes in this review, in order to improve consistency between trials in this area, and aid future meta-analysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 312 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 77 25%
Student > Master 61 20%
Student > Bachelor 43 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 10%
Researcher 29 9%
Other 72 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 93 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 84 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 55 18%
Social Sciences 21 7%
Psychology 15 5%
Other 44 14%

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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#714,777
of 13,597,849 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,249
of 10,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,557
of 391,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,597,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 391,128 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 228 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 69% of its contemporaries.