ArticleBMJ open2020
Experiences of pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying Themes in the Knowledge and Attitudes of UK Healthcare Professionals Towards Transgender and Nonbinary Patients: An Evidence Review.The clinical teacher · 2026Pooled it
- The experiences of pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of fine particulate matter exposure on gestational diabetes mellitus risk: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Diabetes Research Matters: A Three-Round Priority-Setting Survey Consultation with Adults Living with Diabetes and Family Members in Australia.The patient · 2024Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the High-Risk Pregnancy Well-Being Index in Mashhad: a methodological study.Reproductive health · 2022Article
- Healthcare provider's experiences of supporting breastfeeding: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative evidence.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Baccalaureate nursing students' experiences with high-fidelity simulation: protocol for a qualitative systematic review.BMJ open · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing and an issue of global concern. GDM can cause severe adverse effects for pregnant women and their fetuses. This systematic review is proposed to explore women's experiences during the pregnancy with GDM. This review will provide insights into the physical, psychological and social adaptation experiences of women with GDM that can help to identify challenges of glycaemic control and provide targeted care and interventions to improve maternal and child health. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The databases we will search include English databases (ie, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, OpenGrey and Deep Blue) and Chinese databases (ie, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals). Published qualitative evidence of life changes or experiences of the women with GDM will be searched. There will be no limits on publication year. Two reviewers will independently use the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for methodological validity prior to inclusion in this review. Any disagreements regarding article evaluation will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using the standardised data extraction tool from JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information. Synthesis will include in-depth reading of the original text and the discovery of the results, and then summarising similar categories for more advanced synthesised findings. The final synthesised findings will be graded according to the ConQual approach for establishing confidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. Results of this systematic review will be submitted to peer-reviewed international journals for publication and be presented in relevant international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019132065.
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.