Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34635186›Full record

ReviewClinical diabetes and endocrinology2021

The diagnostic indicators of gestational diabetes mellitus from second trimester to birth: a systematic review.

Daria Di Filippo, Thiyasha Wanniarachchi, Daniel Wei, Jennifer J Yang, Aoife Mc Sweeney, Alys Havard, Amanda Henry, Alec Welsh

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical diabetes and endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daria Di FilippoSchool, of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Thiyasha WanniarachchiFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Daniel WeiFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jennifer J YangFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Aoife Mc SweeneyDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alys HavardNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre - Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Amanda Henry *School, of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alec Welsh *School, of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. alec.welsh@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7389-0513
UNSW Sydney · AURoyal Hospital for Women · AUSt George Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is glucose intolerance first recognised during pregnancy. Both modalities and thresholds of the GDM diagnostic test, the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT), have varied widely over time and among countries. Additionally, OGTT limitations include inconsistency, poor patient tolerability, and questionable diagnostic reliability. Many biological parameters have been reported to be modified by GDM and could potentially be used as diagnostic indicators. This study aimed to 1) systematically explore biomarkers reported in the literature as differentiating GDM from healthy pregnancies 2) screen those indicators assessed against OGTT to propose OGTT alternatives. MAIN BODY: A systematic review of GDM diagnostic indicators was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42020145499). Inclusion criteria were full-text, comprehensible English-language articles published January 2009-January 2021, where a biomarker (from blood, ultrasound, amniotic fluid, placenta) was compared between GDM and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) women from the second trimester onward to immediately postpartum. GDM diagnostic method had to be clearly specified, and the number of patients per study higher than 30 in total or 15 per group. Results were synthesised by biomarkers.

resultsOf 13,133 studies identified in initial screening, 174 studies (135,801 participants) were included. One hundred and twenty-nine studies described blood analytes, one amniotic fluid analytes, 27 ultrasound features, 17 post-natal features. Among the biomarkers evaluated in exploratory studies, Adiponectin, AFABP, Betatrophin, CRP, Cystatin-C, Delta-Neutrophil Index, GGT, TNF-A were those demonstrating statistically and clinically significant differences in substantial cohorts of patients (> 500). Regarding biomarkers assessed versus OGTT (i.e. potential OGTT alternatives) most promising were Leptin > 48.5 ng/ml, Ficolin3/adiponectin ratio ≥ 1.06, Chemerin/FABP > 0.71, and Ultrasound Gestational Diabetes Score > 4. These all demonstrated sensitivity and specificity > 80% in adequate sample sizes (> / = 100).

conclusionsNumerous biomarkers may differentiate GDM from normoglycaemic pregnancy. Given the limitations of the OGTT and the lack of a gold standard for GDM diagnosis, advanced phase studies are needed to triangulate the most promising biomarkers. Further studies are also recommended to assess the sensitivity and specificity of promising biomarkers not yet assessed against OGTT.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42020145499.

Indexed as

BiomarkerDiagnosisGestational diabetes mellitusIndicators

Identifiers

PMID34635186
PMCPMC8504031
OpenAlexW3206146375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.