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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Gestational diabetes mellitus—right person, right treatment, right time?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0925-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert S. Lindsay, Sharon T. Mackin, Scott M. Nelson |
| Abstract |
Personalised treatment that is uniquely tailored to an individual's phenotype has become a key goal of clinical and pharmaceutical development across many, particularly chronic, diseases. For type 2 diabetes, the importance of the underlying clinical heterogeneity of the condition is emphasised and a range of treatments are now available, with personalised approaches being developed. While a close connection between risk factors for type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes has long been acknowledged, stratification of screening, treatment and obstetric intervention remains in its infancy. Although there have been major advances in our understanding of glucose tolerance in pregnancy and of the benefits of treatment of gestational diabetes, we argue that far more vigorous approaches are needed to enable development of companion diagnostics, and to ensure the efficacious and safe use of novel therapeutic agents and strategies to improve outcomes in this common condition. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 29 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,229
of 3,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,526
of 316,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#41
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 316,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.