Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32739381›Full record

ArticleDiabetes research and clinical practice2020

Testing for gestational diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. An evaluation of proposed protocols for the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

H David McIntyre, Kristen S Gibbons, Ronald C W Ma, Wing Hung Tam, David A Sacks, Julia Lowe, Lene R Madsen, Patrick M Catalano

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes research and clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Postprandial Hyperglycaemia Screening and Pregnancy Outcomes-Lessons From COVID -19.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

H David McIntyreMater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: David.mcintyre@mater.org.au.
Kristen S GibbonsMater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia.
Ronald C W MaDepartment of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; Chinese University of Hong Kong-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Research Centre in Diabetes Genomics and Precision Medicine, Hong Kong Institute of Diabetes and Obesity, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Wing Hung TamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
David A SacksDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA, USA.
Julia LoweUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Lene R MadsenSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Patrick M CatalanoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mother Infant Research Institute, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · CNAarhus University Hospital · DKKaiser Permanente · USMater Research · AUTufts Medical Center · USUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUniversity of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe assessed how altered diagnostic processes and criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) recommended by the United Kingdom (UK), Canada and Australia for use during the COVID-19 pandemic would affect both GDM frequency and related adverse outcomes.

methodsSecondary analysis of 5974 HAPO study women with singleton pregnancies who underwent 75 g OGTTs and HbA1c assays between 24 and 32 weeks' gestation and who received no treatment for GDM.

resultsAll post COVID-19 modified pathways reduced GDM frequency - UK (81%), Canada (82%) and Australia (25%). Canadian women whose GDM would remain undetected post COVID-19 (missed GDMs) displayed similar rates of pregnancy complications to those with post COVID-19 GDM. Using UK modifications, the missed GDM group were at slightly lower risk whilst the women missed using the Australian modifications were at substantially lower risk.

conclusionsThe modifications in GDM diagnosis proposed for the UK, Canada and Australia result in differing reductions of GDM frequency. Each has both potential benefits in terms of reduction in potential exposure to COVID-19 and costs in terms of missed opportunities to influence pregnancy and postpartum outcomes. These factors should be considered when deciding which protocol is most appropriate for a particular context.

Indexed as

AdultAustraliaBetacoronavirusBlood GlucoseCanadaCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Diabetes, GestationalFastingFemaleGlucose Tolerance TestGlycated HemoglobinHumansMissed DiagnosisPandemicsPneumonia, ViralBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanCOVID-19DiagnosisGestational diabetesPregnancy complicationsScreening

Identifiers

PMID32739381
PMCPMC7391984
OpenAlexW3045891690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.