↓ Skip to main content

Diabetes in pregnancy among indigenous women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: a method for systematic review of studies with different designs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2011
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Diabetes in pregnancy among indigenous women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: a method for systematic review of studies with different designs
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2393-11-104
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catherine Chamberlain, Daniel Yore, Hang Li, Emily Williams, Brian Oldenburg, Jeremy Oats, Bridgette McNamara, Sandra Eades

Abstract

Diabetes in pregnancy, which includes gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), is associated with poor outcomes for both mother and infant during pregnancy, at birth and in the longer term. Recent international guidelines recommend changes to the current GDM screening criteria. While some controversy remains, there appears to be consensus that women at high risk of T2DM, including indigenous women, should be offered screening for GDM early in pregnancy, rather than waiting until 24-28 weeks as is current practice. A range of criteria should be considered before changing screening practice in a population sub-group, including: prevalence, current practice, acceptability and whether adequate treatment pathways and follow-up systems are available. There are also specific issues related to screening in pregnancy and indigenous populations. The evidence that these criteria are met for indigenous populations is yet to be reported. A range of study designs can be considered to generate relevant evidence for these issues, including epidemiological, observational, qualitative, and intervention studies, which are not usually included within a single systematic review. The aim of this paper is to describe the methods we used to systematically review studies of different designs and present the evidence in a pragmatic format for policy discussion.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 104 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 31 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 December 2011.
All research outputs
#14,141,940
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#2,684
of 4,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,082
of 243,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 243,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.