Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31798900›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open diabetes research & care2019

Antidiabetic medication use during pregnancy: an international utilization study.

Carolyn E Cesta, Jacqueline M Cohen, Laura Pazzagli, Brian T Bateman, Gabriella Bröms, Kristjana Einarsdóttir, Kari Furu, Alys Havard, Anna Heino, Sonia Hernandez-Diaz and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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 7 countries.

Carolyn E CestaCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5759-9366
Jacqueline M CohenDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Laura PazzagliCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Brian T BatemanDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Gabriella BrömsCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kristjana EinarsdóttirCentre of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Kari FuruDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Alys HavardCentre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anna HeinoInformation Services Department, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Sonia Hernandez-DiazDepartment of Epidemiology, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Krista F HuybrechtsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Øystein KarlstadDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Helle KielerCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jiong LiDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark.
Maarit K LeinonenInformation Services Department, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.
Hanne L GulsethDepartment of Chronic Diseases and Ageing, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Duong TranCentre for Big Data Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Yongfu YuDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Denmark.
Helga ZoegaCentre of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Ingvild OdsbuCentre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SENorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOAarhus University · DKBrigham and Women's Hospital · USFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FIUniversity of Iceland · ISUNSW Sydney · AUDanderyds sjukhus · SEHarvard University · US

Funding

Impact of obesity treatments on subsequent pregnancy outcomesR01HD097778 · NICHD · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Sonia Hernandez-Diaz · 2019 to 2026
$4.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD097778
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Diabetes in pregnancy and consequently the need for treatment with antidiabetic medication (ADM) has become increasingly prevalent. The prevalence and patterns of use of ADM in pregnancy from 2006 onward in seven different countries was assessed. Research design and methods: Data sources included individually linked data from the nationwide health registers in Denmark (2006-2016), Finland (2006-2016), Iceland (2006-2012), Norway (2006-2015), Sweden (2006-2015), state-wide administrative and claims data for New South Wales, Australia (2006-2012) and two US insurance databases: Medicaid Analytic eXtract (MAX; 2006-2012, public) and IBM MarketScan (2012-2015, private). The prevalence of ADM use was calculated as the proportion of pregnancies with at least one filled prescription of an ADM in the 90 days before pregnancy or within the three trimesters of pregnancy. Results: Prevalence of any ADM use in 5 279 231 pregnancies was 3% (n=147 999) and varied from under 2% (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) to above 5% (Australia and US). Insulin was the most used ADM, and metformin was the most used oral hypoglycemic agent with increasing use over time in all countries. In 11.4%-62.5% of pregnancies with prepregnancy use, ADM (primarily metformin) was discontinued. When ADM treatment was initiated in late pregnancy for treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus, insulin was most often dispensed, except in the US, where glibenclamide was most often used. Conclusions: Prevalence and patterns of use of ADM classes varied between countries and over time. While insulin remained the most common ADM used in pregnancy, metformin use increased significantly over the study period.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkersBlood GlucoseDiabetes, GestationalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Drug UtilizationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInternational AgenciesMiddle AgedPregnancyPrevalencePrognosisBiomarkersBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic Agentsdrug utilizationgestational diabetes mellitusinsulinoral antidiabeticspharmacoepidemiologypopulation-based studiespregestational diabetespregnancy

Identifiers

PMID31798900
PMCPMC6861111
OpenAlexW2986307474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.