↓ Skip to main content

Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela O’Dea, Jennifer J Infanti, Paddy Gillespie, Olga Tummon, Samuel Fanous, Liam G Glynn, Brian E McGuire, John Newell, Fidelma P Dunne

Abstract

The risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selective screening (based on risk factors) or universal screening is the most appropriate approach. Additionally, there is ongoing debate about what levels of glucose abnormalities during pregnancy respond best to treatment and which maternal and neonatal outcomes benefit most from treatment. Furthermore, the implications of possible screening options on health care costs are not well established. In response to this uncertainty there have been repeated calls for well-designed, randomised trials to determine the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and management plans for GDM. We describe a randomised controlled trial to investigate screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening in primary versus secondary care settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 112 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 22%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 32 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,306,718
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#23
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,799
of 322,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 22 of them.
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 322,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.