ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2014
Counterpoint: Establishing consensus in the diagnosis of GDM following the HAPO study.
Review in Current diabetes reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Utility of Biochemical Markers for the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Association between gestational abnormal glucose tolerance and maternal-fetal outcomes.The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2022Article
- Implementing the 2013 WHO diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus in a Rural Nigerian Population.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Article
- Performance of Variables in Screening for Gestational Diabetes.European endocrinology · 2019Article
- Metabolomics of Diabetes in Pregnancy.Current diabetes reports · 2017Review
- Early Pregnancy Biochemical Predictors of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Current diabetes reports · 2017Review
- Updated guidelines on screening for gestational diabetes.International journal of women's health · 2015Review
- GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS - IS STILL A "MYSTERIOUS DISEASE" IN 2016?Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommended a new protocol of 1-step testing with a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test for gestational diabetes in 2010. Since that time, these recommendations have been carefully scrutinized and accepted by a variety of organizations, but challenged or rejected by others. In the current review, we present more details regarding the background to the development of the IADPSG recommendations and seek to place them in context with the available epidemiologic and randomized controlled trial data. In this "counterpoint," we also provide specific rebuttal for errors of fact and disputed contentions provided by Long and Cundy in their 2013 article in Current Diabetes Reports.
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.