↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The role of blood groups in the development of diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
The role of blood groups in the development of diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes mellitus
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s92294
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hatice Karagoz, Abdulsamet Erden, Ozerhan Ozer, Kubra Esmeray, Ali Cetinkaya, Deniz Avci, Samet Karahan, Mustafa Basak, Kadir Bulut, Hasan Mutlu, Yasin Simsek

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common condition that is defined as glucose intolerance of varying degree with onset or first recognition during pregnancy and it affects approximately 5% of all pregnancies all over the world. GDM is not only associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as macrosomia, dystocia, birth trauma, and metabolic complications in newborns, but it is also a strong predictor of transitioning to overt DM postpartum. The association of ABO blood groups with DM has been observed before in several epidemiological and genetic studies and resulted with inconsistent findings, but still there are not enough studies in the literature about the association of ABO blood groups with GDM. In this study, we aimed at investigating any possible relationship between the ABO blood group system and GDM and also the transitioning of GDM to overt DM postpartum, in Turkey. A total of 233 patients with GDM from Kayseri Training and Research Hospital between 2002 and 2012 were included in the study. The cases that have serologically determined blood groups and Rh factor in the hospital records were included in the study, and the patients with unknown blood groups were excluded. Patients were classified according to blood groups (A, B, AB, and O) and Rh status (+/-). GDM was diagnosed based on the glucose cut-points of the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Society Groups. The distributions of blood groups of the patients with GDM were compared with the distribution of blood groups of 17,314 healthy donors who were admitted to the Turkish Red Crescent Blood Service in our city in 2012. There was a significant difference between the patients with GDM and control group in terms of distribution of ABO blood groups. Blood group AB was found to be higher in the patients with GDM compared to the control group (P=0.029). When the patients were compared according to the development of DM, the ratio of group O was higher than others, while the ratio of group B was lower in the group developing DM (P=0.001). There was a significant difference between the groups - GDM patients with or without DM - in terms of distribution of ABO blood groups with Rh factor and the ratio of developing DM is found to be higher in patients with +Rh factor among all the blood groups except for group B (P=0.008). In this study, we found a higher risk of GDM for the patients with blood group AB, which means that we have to be more careful on the follow-up of pregnant women with blood group AB. The patients with GDM of blood group O are under a higher risk of developing DM and also +Rh factor must be considered as another risk factor, so these patients should be closely followed postpartum by the oral glucose tolerance tests. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis that investigates the association between the ABO blood groups and transitioning to DM after GDM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 11 21%
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Unspecified 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,367,288
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#265
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,524
of 287,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#9
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 287,342 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.