Trial reportPloS one2020
Within-trial cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention using a 3-tier shared care approach for pregnancy outcomes in Chinese women with gestational diabetes.
Trial report in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-effectiveness of interventions for screening, treatment, and management of diabetes mellitus during pregnancy: A systematic review.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study assessed within-trial cost-effectiveness of a shared care program (SC, n = 339) for pregnancy outcomes compared to usual care (UC, n = 361), as implemented in a randomized trial of Chinese women with gestational diabetes (GDM). SC consisted of an individualized dietary advice and physical activity counseling program. The UC was a one-time group education program. The effectiveness was measured by number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one macrosomia/large for gestational age (LGA) infant. The cost-effectiveness was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of cost (2012 Chinese Yuan/US dollar) per case of macrosomia and LGA prevented. The study took both a health care system and a societal perspective. This study found that the NNT was 16/14 for macrosomia/LGA. The incremental cost for treating a pregnant woman was ¥1,877 ($298) from a health care system perspective and ¥2,056 ($327) from a societal perspective. The cost of preventing a case of macrosomia/LGA from the two corresponding perspectives were ¥30,032/¥26,278 ($4,775/$4,178) and ¥32,896/¥28,784 ($5,230/$4,577), respectively. Considering the potential severe adverse health and economic consequences of a macrosomia/LGA infant, our findings suggest that implementing this lifestyle intervention for women with GDM is an efficient use of health care resources.
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.