Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675922›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Changing diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes in Sweden - a stepped wedge national cluster randomised controlled trial - the CDC4G study protocol.

Helena Fadl, Maryam Saeedi, Scott Montgomery, Anders Magnuson, Erik Schwarcz, Kerstin Berntorp, Verena Sengpiel, Elisabeth Storck-Lindholm, Helena Strevens, Anna-Karin Wikström and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

20 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.

Helena FadlDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. Helena.fadl@regionorebrolan.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2691-7525
Maryam SaeediDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Scott MontgomeryClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Anders MagnusonClinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Örebro, Örebro, Sweden.
Erik SchwarczDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of medical health and sciences, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Kerstin BerntorpDepartment of Endocrinology, Skåne University Hospital, Clinical Research Center Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Verena SengpielDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Elisabeth Storck-LindholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helena StrevensDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skåne University Hospital, Clinical Research Center Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anna-Karin WikströmWomen's and Children's Health, Uppsala university, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sophia Brismar-WendelDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Martina PerssonDepartment of Paediatrics, Sachsska Children's and Youth hospital and Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Stefan JanssonSchool of Medical Sciences, University Health Care Research Center, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Fredrik AhlssonDepartment of Women's and Children's health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Carina UrsingDepartment of Endocrinology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Linda RyenCenter for Health Care Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Kerstin PeterssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Ulla-Britt WennerholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karin HildénDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
David SimmonsMacarthur Clinical School, Western Sydney University, Campbell town, Australia.
Örebro University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SELund University · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SEStockholm South General Hospital · SEUppsala University · SECamden and Campbelltown Hospitals · AUÖrebro University Hospital · SEUmeå University · SE

Funding

ALFGBG 823211Fru Mary von Sydow 2618Fru Mary von Sydow 4917Fru Mary von Sydows 107Nyckelfonden OLL-597601Regional Research Committee Uppsala-Örebro RFR-749241Region Örebro län OLL-693551Region Örebro län OLL-786911Vetenskapsrådet 2018-00470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remain contested. The Swedish National Board of Health introduced the 2013 WHO criteria in 2015 as a recommendation for initiation of treatment for hyperglycaemia during pregnancy. With variation in GDM screening and diagnostic practice across the country, it was agreed that the shift to new guidelines should be in a scientific and structured way. The aim of the Changing Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes (CDC4G) in Sweden ( www.cdc4g.se/en ) is to evaluate the clinical and health economic impacts of changing diagnostic criteria for GDM in Sweden and to create a prospective cohort to compare the many long-term outcomes in mother and baby under the old and new diagnostic approaches.

methodsThis is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial, comparing pregnancy outcomes before and after the switch in GDM criteria across 11 centres in a randomised manner. The trial includes all pregnant women screened for GDM across the participating centres during January-December 2018, approximately two thirds of all pregnancies in Sweden in a year. Women with pre-existing diabetes will be excluded. Data will be collected through the national Swedish Pregnancy register and for follow up studies other health registers will be included. DISCUSSION: The stepped wedge RCT was chosen to be the best study design for evaluating the shift from old to new diagnostic criteria of GDM in Sweden. The national quality registers provide data on the whole pregnant population and gives a possibility for follow up studies of both mother and child. The health economic analysis from the study will give a solid evidence base for future changes in order to improve immediate pregnancy, as well as long term, outcomes for mother and child.

trial registrationCDC4G is listed on the ISRCTN registry with study ID ISRCTN41918550 (15/12/2017).

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultCluster AnalysisDiabetes, GestationalFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePrenatal DiagnosisProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSwedenDiagnostic criteriaGestational diabetes mellitusHealth economicsLGAObesityPregnancy outcomesStepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trialWHO 2013 criteria

Identifiers

PMID31675922
PMCPMC6823965
OpenAlexW2984995723

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.