| Title |
Interventions for pregnant women with hyperglycaemia not meeting gestational diabetes and type 2 diabetes diagnostic criteria
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009037.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shanshan Han, Caroline A Crowther, Philippa Middleton |
| Abstract |
Pregnancy hyperglycaemia without meeting gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnostic criteria affects a significant proportion of pregnant women each year. It is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although intensive management for women with GDM has been proven beneficial for women and their babies, there is little known about the effects of treating women with hyperglycaemia who do not meet diagnostic criteria for GDM and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 367 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 357 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 61 | 17% |
| Researcher | 42 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 6% |
| Other | 69 | 19% |
| Unknown | 102 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 144 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 19 | 5% |
| Psychology | 10 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 2% |
| Other | 38 | 10% |
| Unknown | 113 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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
#4,484,032
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,838
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,462
of 245,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 245,904 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 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 59% of its contemporaries.