Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22196083›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2011

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.

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Catherine ChamberlainInternational Public Health Unit Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine School of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Monash University, Victoria, Australia. Catherine.chamberlain@monash.edu
Daniel Yore
Hang Li
Emily Williams
Brian Oldenburg
Jeremy Oats
Bridgette McNamara
Sandra Eades
Monash University · AUBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute · AUDeakin University · AUMonash Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes 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. METHODS/

designThe inclusion criteria will be broad to ensure inclusion of the critical perspectives of indigenous women. Abstracts of the search results will be reviewed by two persons; the full texts of all potentially eligible papers will be reviewed by one person, and 10% will be checked by a second person for validation. Data extraction will be standardised, using existing tools to identify risks for bias in intervention, measurement, qualitative studies and reviews; and adapting criteria for appraising risk for bias in descriptive studies. External validity (generalisability) will also be appraised. The main findings will be synthesised according to the criteria for population-based screening and summarised in an adapted "GRADE" tool. DISCUSSION: This will be the first systematic review of all the published literature on diabetes in pregnancy among indigenous women. The method provides a pragmatic approach for synthesizing relevant evidence from a range of study designs to inform the current policy discussion.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalPopulation GroupsPregnancy in DiabeticsSystematic Reviews as TopicAustraliaCanadaFemaleHealth PlanningHumansMaternal Health ServicesMedically Underserved AreaNew ZealandPregnancyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22196083
PMCPMC3260090
OpenAlexW2171979831

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.