Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27459502›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2016

Mothers after Gestational Diabetes in Australia (MAGDA): A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Postnatal Diabetes Prevention Program.

Sharleen L O'Reilly, James A Dunbar, Vincent Versace, Edward Janus, James D Best, Rob Carter, Jeremy J N Oats, Timothy Skinner, Michael Ackland, Paddy A Phillips and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Sharleen L O'ReillyInstitute of Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
James A DunbarCentre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0866-4365
Vincent VersaceSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia.
Edward JanusDepartment of Medicine, Melbourne Medical School-Western Precinct, University of Melbourne, St Albans, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0213-4515
James D BestLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Imperial College London and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Rob CarterCentre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Jeremy J N OatsMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Timothy SkinnerSchool of Psychological and Clinical Sciences, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0018-6963
Michael AcklandDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Paddy A PhillipsDepartment of Medicine, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9985-7631
Peter R EbelingDepartment of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
John ReynoldsAlfred Health and Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8825-8625
Sophy T F ShihCentre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Virginia HaggerDiabetes Australia Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Michael CoatesSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia.
Carol WildeyMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
MAGDA Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasingly prevalent risk factor for type 2 diabetes. We evaluated the effectiveness of a group-based lifestyle modification program in mothers with prior GDM within their first postnatal year. METHODS AND

findingsIn this study, 573 women were randomised to either the intervention (n = 284) or usual care (n = 289). At baseline, 10% had impaired glucose tolerance and 2% impaired fasting glucose. The diabetes prevention intervention comprised one individual session, five group sessions, and two telephone sessions. Primary outcomes were changes in diabetes risk factors (weight, waist circumference, and fasting blood glucose), and secondary outcomes included achievement of lifestyle modification goals and changes in depression score and cardiovascular disease risk factors. The mean changes (intention-to-treat [ITT] analysis) over 12 mo were as follows: -0.23 kg body weight in intervention group (95% CI -0.89, 0.43) compared with +0.72 kg in usual care group (95% CI 0.09, 1.35) (change difference -0.95 kg, 95% CI -1.87, -0.04; group by treatment interaction p = 0.04); -2.24 cm waist measurement in intervention group (95% CI -3.01, -1.42) compared with -1.74 cm in usual care group (95% CI -2.52, -0.96) (change difference -0.50 cm, 95% CI -1.63, 0.63; group by treatment interaction p = 0.389); and +0.18 mmol/l fasting blood glucose in intervention group (95% CI 0.11, 0.24) compared with +0.22 mmol/l in usual care group (95% CI 0.16, 0.29) (change difference -0.05 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.14, 0.05; group by treatment interaction p = 0.331). Only 10% of women attended all sessions, 53% attended one individual and at least one group session, and 34% attended no sessions. Loss to follow-up was 27% and 21% for the intervention and control groups, respectively, primarily due to subsequent pregnancies. Study limitations include low exposure to the full intervention and glucose metabolism profiles being near normal at baseline.

conclusionsAlthough a 1-kg weight difference has the potential to be significant for reducing diabetes risk, the level of engagement during the first postnatal year was low. Further research is needed to improve engagement, including participant involvement in study design; it is potentially more effective to implement annual diabetes screening until women develop prediabetes before offering an intervention.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000338066.

Indexed as

AdultAustraliaBody Mass IndexDiabetes, GestationalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansPostnatal CarePregnancyRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeWaist Circumference

Identifiers

PMID27459502
PMCPMC4961439

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.