ArticlePloS one2013
Simulated estimates of pre-pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus in the US: 1980 to 2008.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing prevalence of diabetes during pregnancy in South Carolina.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo simulate national estimates of prepregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in non-Hispanic white (NHW) and non-Hispanic black (NHB) women.
methodsPrepregnancy diabetes and GDM were estimated as a function of age, race/ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI) using South Carolina live singleton births from 2004-2008. Diabetes risk was applied to a simulated population. Age, natality and BMI were assigned to women according to race- and age-specific US Census, Natality and National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data, respectively.
resultsFrom 1980-2008, estimated GDM prevalence increased from 4.11% to 6.80% [2.68% (95% CI 2.58%-2.78%)] and from 3.96% to 6.43% [2.47% (95% CI 2.39%-2.55%)] in NHW and NHB women, respectively. In NHW women prepregnancy diabetes prevalence increased 0.90% (95% CI 0.85%-0.95%) from 0.95% in 1980 to 1.85% in 2008. In NHB women from 1980 through 2008 estimated prepregnancy diabetes prevalence increased 1.51% (95% CI 1.44%-1.57%), from 1.66% to 3.16%.
conclusionsRacial disparities in diabetes prevalence during pregnancy appear to stem from a higher prevalence of prepregnancy diabetes, but not GDM, in NHB than NHW.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.