Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36031150›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM2022

Early screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Rodney A McLaren, Kathryn R Ruymann, Gladys A Ramos, Sarah S Osmundson, Victoria Jauk, Vincenzo Berghella

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Early detection of Insuline Resistence in Pregnant Women].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Undetected Maternal Diabetes Causing Multiple Severe Complications in a Newborn: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023
    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.

Rodney A McLarenDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (Drs McLaren, Ruymann, and Berghella). Electronic address: rodney.mclaren@jefferson.edu.
Kathryn R RuymannDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (Drs McLaren, Ruymann, and Berghella).
Gladys A RamosDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA (Dr Ramos).
Sarah S OsmundsonDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN (Dr Osmundson).
Victoria JaukDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Women's Reproductive Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (Ms Jauk).
Vincenzo BerghellaDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (Drs McLaren, Ruymann, and Berghella).

Funding

Reducing Unused Prescribed Opioids After Cesarean BirthK23DA047476 · NIDA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI OSMUNDSON, SARAH SCHEIDERICH · 2019 to 2023
$859k
NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA047476NIDA NIH HHS L30 DA046840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCurrent evidence is conflicting on whether early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus improve pregnancy outcomes. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to assess the rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes among participants with early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus vs those with routine care. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library at the Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SciELO from inception to November 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they described randomized controlled trials comparing early screening with routine care for gestational diabetes mellitus to assess the effects of early screening and treatment on pregnancy outcomes.

methodsAll randomized controlled trials comparing early vs standard screening of gestational diabetes mellitus assessing the effect of early screening (defined as a screening at <20 weeks of gestation) vs routine screening (defined as a screening at ≥20 weeks of gestation) on pregnancy outcomes were included. The primary outcome was defined as large for gestational age, as defined by the trial. The secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes were also evaluated. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of screening strategy and methods.

resultsAfter exclusion, 8 randomized clinical trials (1920 participants) of early screening and treatment vs standard care were included. There were a total of 746 participants with early gestational diabetes mellitus. The risk of large for gestational age at birth did not differ between early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus and routine care among all included trials (8.1 vs 9.0%; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.22). Trials with a protocol of universal screening of participants at their first prenatal visit (>80% screened with HbA1c) and receiving early treatment if the screening test returned positive had a lower risk of large for gestational age (2.3 vs 9.1%; relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.90) than those who had routine screening and care.

conclusionOverall, early screening and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus did not reduce the risk of large for gestational age at birth. However, trials that screened all participants at their first visit and treated early, most for an HbA1c of 5.7% to 6.4%, had a reduced risk of large for gestational age at birth compared with routine care, suggesting a possible benefit of screening all pregnant patients. However, future well-designed trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

diabetes mellitusearly screeninggestational diabetes mellituslarge for gestational agemacrosomia

Identifiers

PMID36031150
PMCPMC11491265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.