Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35421942›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Development and evaluation of an online questionnaire to identify women at high and low risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus.

Daria Di Filippo, Chloe Bell, Melissa Han Yiin Chang, Justine Darling, Amanda Henry, Alec Welsh

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daria Di FilippoSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Chloe BellSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Melissa Han Yiin ChangSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Justine DarlingDiabetes Clinic, Royal Hospital for Women, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Amanda HenrySchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Alec WelshSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. alec.welsh@unsw.edu.au.
UNSW Sydney · AURoyal Hospital for Women · AU

Funding

Maternal Newborn and Women's Clinical Academy Group Funding support for translational research projects 2020Royal Hospital for Women Foundation RG140122UNSW Women Wellbeing Academy Small project grant 2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstablished risk factors for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) include age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes and previous GDM. Additional significant influences have recently been demonstrated in the literature. The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) used for GDM diagnosis has sub-optimal sensitivity and specificity, thus often results in GDM misdiagnoses. Comprehensive screening of risk factors may allow more targeted monitoring and more accurate diagnoses, preventing the devastating consequences of untreated or misdiagnosed GDM. We aimed to develop a comprehensive online questionnaire of GDM risk factors and triangulate it with the OGTT and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters to better evaluate GDM risk and diagnosis.

methodsPregnant women participating in two studies on the use of CGM for GDM were invited to complete the online questionnaire. A risk score, based on published literature, was calculated for each participant response and compared with the OGTT result. A total risk score (TRS) was then calculated as a normalised sum of all risk factors. Triangulation of OGTT, TRS and CGM score of variability (CGMSV) was analysed to expand evaluation of OGTT results.

resultsFifty one women completed the questionnaire; 29 were identified as 'high-risk' for GDM. High-risk ethnic background (p < 0.01), advanced age, a family diabetic history (p < 0.05) were associated with a positive OGTT result. The triangulation analysis (n = 45) revealed six (13%) probable misdiagnoses (both TRS and CGMSV discordant with OGTT), consisting of one probable false positive and five probable false negative by OGTT results.

conclusionsThis study identified pregnant women at high risk of developing GDM based on an extended evaluation of risk factors. Triangulation of TRS, OGTT and CGMSV suggested potential misdiagnoses of the OGTT. Future studies to explore the correlation between TRS, CGMSV and pregnancy outcomes as well as additional GDM pregnancy biomarkers and outcomes to efficiently evaluate OGTT results are needed.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringFemaleHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyRisk FactorsBlood GlucoseGestational diabetes mellitusOral glucose tolerance testQuestionnaireRisk factorsScreening, continuous glucose monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35421942
PMCPMC9009497
OpenAlexW4223952325

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.