↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
39 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
417 Mendeley
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 We had planned to include published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT) or cluster-randomised trials, in full text or abstract format that compared any type of exercise programme, added to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 417 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 417 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 17%
Student > Bachelor 53 13%
Researcher 33 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 8%
Student > Postgraduate 17 4%
Other 69 17%
Unknown 142 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 66 16%
Psychology 22 5%
Social Sciences 16 4%
Sports and Recreations 11 3%
Other 57 14%
Unknown 154 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,037,667
of 19,893,115 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,553
of 11,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,890
of 431,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,893,115 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 11,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. 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 431,399 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 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 70% of its contemporaries.