ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2015
Comparison of the performance of screening test for gestational diabetes in singleton versus twin pregnancies.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the screening methods for gestational diabetes mellitus before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2024Pooled it
- Perinatal Outcomes and Related Risk Factors of Single vs Twin Pregnancy Complicated by Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Meta-Analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Eastern and Southeastern Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of diabetes research · 2018Pooled it
- The Impact of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on the Development of Preeclampsia in Twin Pregnancies: A Retrospective Cohort Study Conducted at a Tertiary Hospital.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2021Article
- Elevated Alanine Aminotransferase in Early Pregnancy and Subsequent Development of Gestational Diabetes and Preeclampsia.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Comparison of perinatal outcomes in late preterm birth between singleton and twin pregnancies.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2017Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared the performance of the 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) in singleton versus twin pregnancies and investigated the need for adjusting GCT cutoff values for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in twin pregnancies among Korean women.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed in women who underwent GCT at 24 to 28 weeks' gestation and delivered in our department between January 2000 and April 2008. GCT performance was compared between singleton and twin pregnancies for an ideal cutoff value of the GCT for GDM screening.
resultsGCT results were available in 3,578 pregnancies (3,435 singleton and 143 twin pregnancies). The mean GCT value was higher in the twin group than in the singleton group. Women in the twin group had a higher mean GCT value (P=0.043) and a higher incidence of GCT ≥130, ≥135, and ≥140 mg/dL (P=0.014, 0.005, and 0.015, respectively). The false positive rate for GCT ≥140 mg/dL was significantly higher in the twin than in the singleton group (P=0.042). The optimal GCT screening cutoff value appears to be ≥145 mg/dL in twin pregnancies.
conclusionOur study demonstrates that the GCT is associated with a higher false positive rate in twin rather than singleton pregnancies. This study suggests we should consider adjusting the GCT cutoff value for GDM in Korean twin pregnancies.
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.