↓ Skip to main content

Updated guidelines on screening for gestational diabetes

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, May 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Updated guidelines on screening for gestational diabetes
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s82046
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yashdeep Gupta, Bharti Kalra, Manash P Baruah, Rajiv Singla, Sanjay Kalra

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with an increased risk of complications for both mother and baby during pregnancy as well as in the postpartum period. Screening and identifying these high-risk women is important to improve short- and long-term maternal and fetal outcomes. However, there is a lack of international uniformity in the approach to the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The main purpose of this review is to provide an update on screening for GDM and overt diabetes during pregnancy, and discuss the controversies in this field. We take on debatable issues such as adoption of the new International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups criteria instead of the Carpenter and Coustan criteria, one-step versus two-step screening, universal screening versus high-risk screening before 24 weeks of gestation for overt diabetes, and, finally, the role of HbA1c as a screening test of GDM. This discussion is followed by a review of recommendations by professional bodies. Certain clinical situations, in which a pragmatic approach is needed, are highlighted to provide a comprehensive overview of the subject.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Other 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 35 23%
Unknown 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 46 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,415,495
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#136
of 850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,839
of 279,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 279,338 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.