Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24912097›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2014

What is the optimal gestational age for women with gestational diabetes type A1 to deliver?

Brenda Niu, Vanessa R Lee, Yvonne W Cheng, Antonio E Frias, James M Nicholson, Aaron B Caughey

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Diabetes mellitus: an independent predictor of duration of prostaglandin labor induction.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Timing of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2016
    Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors.

Brenda NiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address: niub@ohsu.edu.
Vanessa R LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
Yvonne W ChengDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Antonio E FriasDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.
James M NicholsonDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA.
Aaron B CaugheyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR.

Funding

Oregon Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR000128 · NCATS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ELLISON, DAVID H · 2012 to 2015
$28.7M
Oregon Clinical and Translational Science InstituteTL1RR024159 · NCRR · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ORWOLL, ERIC S. · 2006 to 2011
$852k
Oregon Clinical and Translational Research InstituteTL1TR000129 · NCATS · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI ELLISON, DAVID H · 2012 to 2015
$613k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000129NCATS NIH HHS TL1TR000129NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000128NCRR NIH HHS TL1 RR024159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveType A1 gestational diabetes mellitus (A1GDM), also known as diet-controlled gestational diabetes, is associated with an increase in adverse perinatal outcomes such as macrosomia and Erb palsy. However, it remains unclear when to deliver these women because optimal timing of delivery requires balancing neonatal morbidities from early term delivery against the risk of intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD). We sought to determine the optimal gestational age (GA) for women with A1GDM to deliver. STUDY

designA decision-analytic model was built to compare the outcomes of delivery at 37-41 weeks in a theoretical cohort of 100,000 women with A1GDM. Strategies involving expectant management until a later GA accounted for probabilities of spontaneous delivery, indicated delivery, and IUFD during each week. GA-associated risks of neonatal complications included cerebral palsy, infant death, and Erb palsy. Probabilities were derived from the literature, and total quality-adjusted life years were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were used to investigate the robustness of the baseline assumptions.

resultsOur model showed that induction at 38 weeks maximized quality-adjusted life years. Within our cohort, delivery at 38 weeks would prevent 48 stillbirths but lead to 12 more infant deaths compared to 39 weeks. Sensitivity analysis revealed that 38 weeks remains the optimal timing of delivery until IUFD rates fall <0.3-fold of our baseline assumption, at which point expectant management until 39 weeks is optimal.

conclusionBy weighing the risks of IUFD against infant deaths and neonatal morbidities from early term delivery, we determined that the ideal GA for women with A1GDM to deliver is 38 weeks.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesDiabetes, GestationalGestational AgeStillbirthFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornLabor, InducedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePregnancyProbabilityQuality-Adjusted Life Yearsgestational diabetes mellitusinductiontiming of delivery

Identifiers

PMID24912097
PMCPMC4176513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.