↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
Title
Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012910
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda M Biesty, Aoife M Egan, Fidelma Dunne, Eugene Dempsey, Pauline Meskell, Valerie Smith, G Meabh Ni Bhuinneain, Declan Devane

Abstract

Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as pre-eclampsia or polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). Their babies are also more likely to have health complications such as macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g) and being large-for-gestational age (birthweight above the 90th percentile for gestational age). Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term in women with gestational diabetes to minimise perinatal complications, especially those related to macrosomia.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with gestational diabetes and a sister review focuses on women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2). To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth), at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach for improving health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised trials comparing planned birth, at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation), with an expectant approach, for women with gestational diabetes. Cluster-randomised and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The findings of this review are based on a single trial involving 425 women with gestational diabetes. The trial compared induction of labour with expectant management (waiting for the spontaneous onset of labour in the absence of any maternal or fetal issues that may necessitate birth) in pregnant women with gestational diabetes at term. We assessed the overall risk of bias as being low for most domains, apart from performance, detection and attrition bias (for outcome perineum intact), which we assessed as being at high risk. It was an open-label trial, and women and healthcare professionals were not blinded.There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, one trial, 425 women); or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.46, one trial, 425 women). For the primary outcome of maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity, there were no deaths in either group and serious maternal morbidity related to admissions to intensive care unit. The quality of the evidence contributing to these outcomes was assessed as very low, mainly due to the study having high risk of bias for some domains and because of the imprecision of effect estimates.In relation to primary neonatal outcomes, there were no perinatal deaths in either group. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision of effect estimates. There were no clear differences in infant outcomes between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management: shoulder dystocia (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.21, one trial, 425 infants, very low-quality evidence); large-for-gestational age (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.02, one trial, 425 infants, low-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.54, one trial, 425 women); admission to intensive care unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); and intact perineum (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43, one trial, 425 women). No infant experienced a birth trauma, therefore, we could not draw conclusions about the effect of the intervention on the outcomes of brachial plexus injury and bone fracture at birth. Infants of women in the induction-of-labour group had higher incidences of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice) when compared to infants of women in the expectant-management group (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.46, one trial, 425 women).We found no data on the following prespecified outcomes of this review: postnatal depression, maternal satisfaction, length of postnatal stay (mother), acidaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, hypoxia ischaemic encephalopathy, small-for-gestational age, length of postnatal stay (baby) and cost.The authors of this trial acknowledge that it is underpowered for their primary outcome of caesarean section. The authors of the trial and of this review note that the CIs demonstrate a wide range, therefore making it inappropriate to draw definite conclusions. There is limited evidence to inform implications for practice. The available data are not of high quality and lack power to detect possible important differences in either benefit or harm. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for women with gestational diabetes compared with an expectant approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 293 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 55 19%
Student > Master 46 16%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Other 16 5%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 75 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 15%
Psychology 22 8%
Social Sciences 17 6%
Neuroscience 4 1%
Other 31 11%
Unknown 83 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#736,100
of 17,108,355 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,920
of 11,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,852
of 414,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,108,355 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,627 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. 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 414,391 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.