Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28669379›Full record

ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2017

The Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes.

Hanne Melchior, Diana Kurch-Bek, Monika Mund

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05124457 (A Phase 2 Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial Determir Vs Neutral Protamine Hagedorn), which is not on this map. Cited by 91 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
21.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05124457 phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Phase 2 Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial Determir Vs Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) In Pregnant Women: DETERMINE Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2022 to 2025Enrolled336ConditionsGestational Diabetes, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2ArmsInsulin Detemir, Insulin NPH
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 183 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Neonatal hypoglycemia screening practices in infants born to mothers without glucose tolerance testing.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hanne MelchiorNational Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (NASHIP), Department for Cross-Sectoral Quality Improvement, Berlin, Germany; National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (NASHIP), Section Innovation, Strategic Analysis and IT Consulting, Berlin, Germany.
Diana Kurch-Bek
Monika Mund
National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as a glucose tolerance disorder that arises during pregnancy. Estimates of its prevalence vary widely because of varying threshold values. Screening of all pregnant women with a two-step test has been available in Germany since 2012. This study is the first population-based, nationwide analysis of the screening coverage and the resulting one-year prevalence.

methodsBilling data from the outpatient sector were analyzed for all persons covered by statutory health insurance in the two-year period 2014-2015. A cohort of pregnant women, constructed by using pregnancy care billing data, was studied with respect to the screening coverage. The prevalence of GDM was determined from the use of the corresponding ICD-10-GM codes.

results80.8% of 567 191 pregnant women were screened for GDM. Most of them (63.3%) received only the pre-test, and 12.7% received both the pre-test and the diagnostic test. 4.8% received only the diagnostic test. The overall prevalence of GDM was 13.2%. The prevalence rose with age, from 8% to 26% in women aged 45 or older. Younger women more commonly received only the pre-test; the frequency of receiving both tests rose with age.

conclusionScreening for GDM is comprehensively implemented. The analysis of billing data reveals a relatively high prevalence that accords with estimates in other countries, implying that earlier prevalence figures for Germany were probably underestimates.

Indexed as

AdultDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGermanyHumansPregnancyPrevalenceRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID28669379
PMCPMC5499505
OpenAlexW2736269334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.