ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2020
A comparison of the risk of cesarean section in gestational diabetes mellitus patients supplemented antenatally with vitamin D containing supplements versus placebo: A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blinded randomized controlled trials
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes: results from a quantitative umbrella meta-analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and vaginal delivery in pregnant women: an observational case-control study from Türkiye.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence That Increasing Serum 25(OH)D Concentrations to 30 ng/mL in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates Could Greatly Improve Health Outcomes.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Review: Influence of 25(OH)D Blood Concentration and Supplementation during Pregnancy on Preeclampsia Development and Neonatal Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Comparing the Evidence from Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials for Nonskeletal Health Effects of Vitamin D.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Efficacy trials comparing dosages of vitamin D and calcium co-supplementation in gestational diabetes mellitus patients require a methodological revampJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2022Article
- Participant attrition and perinatal outcomes in prenatal vitamin D-supplemented gestational diabetes mellitus patients in Asia: A meta-analysis.World journal of methodology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Changes in anthropometric and blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurements in antenatal vitamin supplemented gestational diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2021Article
- The risk of morbidities in newborns of antenatal vitamin D supplemented gestational diabetes mellitus patients.International journal of health sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to study the role of vitamin D containing supplements in the risk of cesarean section (CS), a common complication in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients. An additional objective was to assess the risk of developing pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery, macrosomia, and polyhydramnios in these participants. Various electronic databases were searched for double-blinded parallel-arm randomized controlled trials that reported the incidence of CS in adult, non-insulin treated GDM patients who received vitamin D and placebo in different treatment arms, respectively. Next, each eligible trial’s risk of bias was assessed, and the effects of the above interventions on the respective outcomes were compared meta-analytically across the trials. This review included five Iranian trials sourcing data from nearly 380 participants. The risk of bias in the trials was primarily low. In contrast to the placebo group, the risk of CS [risk ratio (RR): 0.61, p=0.002, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44,0.83; I
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.