Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21253478›Full record

ArticleJournal of nutrition and metabolism2010

Glycemic index and pregnancy: a systematic literature review.

Jimmy Chun Yu Louie, Jennie C Brand-Miller, Tania P Markovic, Glynis P Ross, Robert G Moses

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nutrition and metabolism, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jimmy Chun Yu LouieDiscipline of Nutrition and Metabolism, School of Molecular Bioscience, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Jennie C Brand-Miller
Tania P Markovic
Glynis P Ross
Robert G Moses

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aim. Dietary glycemic index (GI) has received considerable research interest over the past 25 years although its application to pregnancy outcomes is more recent. This paper critically evaluates the current evidence regarding the effect of dietary GI on maternal and fetal nutrition. Methods. A systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science, from 1980 through September 2010, was conducted. Results. Eight studies were included in the systematic review. Two interventional studies suggest that a low-GI diet can reduce the risk of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants in healthy pregnancies, but one epidemiological study reported an increase in small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants. Evidence in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), though limited (n = 3), consistently supports the advantages of a low-GI diet. Conclusion. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a low-GI diet during normal pregnancy. In pregnancy complicated by GDM, a low-GI diet may reduce the need for insulin without adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes. Until larger-scale intervention trials are completed, a low-GI diet should not replace the current recommended pregnancy diets from government and health agencies. Further research regarding the optimal time to start a low-GI diet for maximum protection against adverse pregnancy outcomes is warranted.

Identifiers

PMID21253478
PMCPMC3022194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.