↓ Skip to main content

Treatments for gestational diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Treatments for gestational diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003395
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tuffnell, D J, West, J, Walkinshaw, S A, Tuffnell, Derek J, West, Jane, Walkinshaw, Stephen A

Abstract

Gestational diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in pregnancy affects between 3 and 6% of all pregnancies and both have been associated with pregnancy complications. A lack of conclusive evidence has led clinicians to equate the risk of adverse perinatal outcome with pre-existing diabetes. Consequently, women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and in some cases insulin therapy. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of gestational diabetes and IGT will improve perinatal outcome. The objective of this review was to compare alternative policies of care for women with gestational diabetes and IGT in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (12 September 2002) and the bibliographies of relevant papers. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was also searched (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002). Randomised controlled trials comparing alternative management strategies for women with gestational diabetes and IGT in pregnancy. Quality was assessed according to the criteria defined by the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. Data were extracted and checked independently by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third reviewer. Three studies with a total of 223 women were included. All three included studies involved women with IGT. No trials reporting treatments for gestational diabetes met the criteria. There are insufficient data for any reliable conclusions about the effect of treatments for IGT on perinatal outcome. The difference in abdominal operative delivery rates is not statistically significant (relative risk (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 1.45) and the effect on special care baby unit admission is also not significant (RR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 1.24). Reduction in birthweight greater than 90th centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.61) was not found to be significant. This review suggests that an interventionist policy of treatment may be associated with a reduced risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86). No other statistically significant differences were detected. A number of outcomes are only reported by one study resulting in a small sample and wide confidence intervals. There are insufficient data for any reliable conclusions about the effects of treatments for impaired glucose tolerance on perinatal outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 37%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Unspecified 4 10%
Other 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 61%
Unspecified 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 4 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,586,133
of 12,140,050 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,707
of 8,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,594
of 233,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 215 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,140,050 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 233,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 215 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.