↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

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
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 462)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
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, Sanjay Kalra, Bharti Kalra, Rajiv Singla, Manash Baruah

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.

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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Postgraduate 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 11 12%
Unspecified 10 11%
Other 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 58%
Unspecified 17 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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
#689,853
of 11,834,771 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#41
of 462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,300
of 227,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,834,771 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 462 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 227,591 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.