Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31100793›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019

The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Glycaemic Control in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Omorogieva Ojo, Sharon M Weldon, Trevor Thompson, Elisabeth J Vargo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Efficacy of Vitamin DNutrients · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Omorogieva OjoDepartment of Adult Nursing and Paramedic Science, University of Greenwich, London SE9 2UG, UK. o.ojo@greenwich.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0071-3652
Sharon M WeldonDepartment of Adult Nursing and Paramedic Science, University of Greenwich, London SE9 2UG, UK. S.M.Weldon@greenwich.ac.uk.
Trevor ThompsonDepartment of Psychology, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK. T.Thompson@greenwich.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9880-782X
Elisabeth J VargoDepartment of Adult Nursing and Paramedic Science, University of Greenwich, London SE9 2UG, UK. E.Vargo@greenwich.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5123-1170
University of Greenwich · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent amongst pregnant women and is linked to a range of adverse complications, including gestational diabetes. However, there is no consensus among researchers regarding the impact of vitamin D supplementation in alleviating adverse effects in gestational diabetes. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether supplementation of vitamin D given to women with gestational diabetes can promote glycaemic control. EMBASE and PubMed were searched up to November, 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials of the effect of vitamin D supplementation (1000-4762 IU/day) on pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Study data and outcome measures (fasting blood glucose, glycated haemoglobin and serum insulin) were extracted from included studies. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity tests, and analysis of the risk of bias were conducted. Most of the studies were graded as having either low risk or moderate risk of bias although two studies had a high risk of bias in the areas of blinding of participants and personnel, and incomplete outcome data. On the other hand, the heterogeneity statistic (I

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsBlood GlucoseDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansInsulinPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVitamin DVitaminsBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinInsulinVitamin DVitaminsGestational Diabetes Mellitusinsulinmeta-analysispregnancyVitamin D supplementation

Identifiers

PMID31100793
PMCPMC6572053
OpenAlexW2946566888

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.