Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35384099›Full record

ArticleJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2022

Medical nutrition therapy for gestational diabetes mellitus in Australia: What has changed in 10 years and how does current practice compare with best practice?

Robyn A Barnes, Melinda Morrison, Jeff R Flack, Glynis P Ross, Carmel E Smart, Clare E Collins, Lesley MacDonald-Wicks

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Medical nutrition therapy for gestational diabetes mellitus in Australia: What has changed in 10 years and how does current practice compare with best practice?Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2022
    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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Robyn A BarnesDiabetes Centre, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Bankstown, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7738-0940
Melinda MorrisonDiabetes NSW & ACT, Glebe, NSW, Australia.
Jeff R FlackDiabetes Centre, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Bankstown, NSW, Australia.
Glynis P RossDiabetes Centre, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Bankstown, NSW, Australia.
Carmel E SmartSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Clare E CollinsSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3298-756X
Lesley MacDonald-WicksSchool of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUBoston Children's Hospital · USDiabetes Australia · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe present study aimed to report Australian dietetic practice regarding management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to make comparisons with the findings from a 2009 survey of dietitians and with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guidelines (NPG).

methodsCross-sectional surveys were conducted in 2019 and 2009 of dietitians providing medical nutrition therapy (MNT) to women with GDM in Australia. The present study compares responses on demographics, dietetic assessment and interventions, and guideline use in 2019 vs. 2009.

resultsIn total, 149 dietitians (2019) and 220 (2009) met survey inclusion criteria. In both surveys >60% of respondents reported dietary interventions aiming for >45% energy from carbohydrate, 15%-25% energy from protein and 15%-30% energy from fat. Many variations in MNT found in 2009 continued to be evident in 2019, including the percentage of energy from carbohydrate aimed for (30%-65% in 2019 vs. 20%-75% in 2009) and the wide range in the recommended minimum daily carbohydrate intake (40-220 and 60-300 g). Few dietitians reported aiming for the NPG minimum of 175 g of carbohydrate daily in both surveys (32% in 2019 vs. 26% in 2009). There were, however, some significant increases in MNT consistent with NPG recommendations in 2019 vs. 2009, including the minimum frequency of visits provided (49%, n = 61 vs. 33%, n = 69; p < 0.001) and provision of gestational weight gain advice (59%, n = 95 vs. 40%, n = 195; p < 0.05).

conclusionsAlthough many dietitians continue to provide MNT consistent with existing NPG, there is a need to support greater uptake, especially for recommendations regarding carbohydrate intake.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalNutrition TherapyAustraliaCarbohydratesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPregnancyCarbohydratesgestational diabetesguidelinesmedical nutrition therapy

Identifiers

PMID35384099
PMCPMC9790639
OpenAlexW4224118514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.