ArticleTurkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology2018
Evaluation of the diabetes in pregnancy study group of India criteria and Carpenter-Coustan criteria in the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus.
Article in Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Obstetric and neonatal complications in large for gestational age pregnancy with late gestational diabetesJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical practice recommendations for the detection and management of hyperglycemia in pregnancy from South Asia, Africa and Mexico during COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Review
- Negotiating Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in India: A National Approach.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Correlation between serum 25-OH vitamin D expression and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance that is diagnosed for the first time during pregnancy. This prospective study was undertaken to validate the single-step non-fasting 75 gm Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of India (DIPSI) criteria of GDM in Indian patients in comparison with the two-step fasting 100 gm glucose challenge through the Carpenter Coustan criteria (CCC). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred patients underwent comparative testing using the DIPSI criteria and CCC. Plasma venous blood glucose levels were estimated using the hexokinase method; values ≥140 mg/dL at 2 hours were considered positive according to the DIPSI criteria. Any two values from ≥95 mg/dL for fasting, ≥180 mg/dL at 1 hour, ≥155 mg/dL at 2 hours, and ≥140 mg/dL at 3 hours were considered positive with the CCC.
resultsThe mean age and body mass index were 24.26±3.75 years and 20.7±3.07 kg/m2. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the DIPSI guidelines were found as 100%, 97.14%, 83.87%, and 100%, respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 35.8 and zero. Diagnostic accuracy was found as 97.56%.
conclusionDIPSI having high sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy. DIPSI offers simplicity, feasibility, convenience, and repeatability while economizing universal screening and diagnosis of GDM on a mass-scale. The DIPSI procedure has the potential to be applied to the entire obstetric population, in the implementation of public health programs to diagnose GDM in the community, thus reaching the needs of the developing world.
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.