ArticleEndocrinology, diabetes & metabolism2023
Validation of Danish registry-cases of type 1 diabetes in women giving live birth using a clinical cohort as gold standard.
Article in Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Type 1 Diabetes by Socioeconomic and Mental Health Disadvantages.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Infective endocarditis and relationship with diabetes mellitus - Patient characteristics, microbial etiology and mortality.Infection · 2025Article
- Validation of Danish registry-cases of type 1 diabetes in women giving live birth using a clinical cohort as gold standard.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to validate type 1 diabetes in women giving live birth in the Danish national registries against a clinical cohort of confirmed cases (the Danish Diabetes Birth Registry [DDBR] cohort).
methodsNational registries including diagnosis codes, redeemed prescriptions and background data were combined. Three main algorithms were constructed to define type 1 diabetes in women giving live birth: (1) Any diabetes diagnosis registered before delivery and before age of 30, (2) a specific type 1 diabetes diagnosis registered before delivery regardless of maternal age and (3) a 'preexisting type 1 diabetes in pregnancy' diagnosis registered before delivery. In additional sub-algorithms, we added information on anti-diabetic medicine and gestational diabetes diagnosis. We calculated positive predictive value (PPV) and completeness using the DDBR cohort as gold standard. Since DDBR included between 75 and 93% of women with confirmed type 1 diabetes giving live birth, we used quantitative bias analysis to assess the potential impact of missing data on PPV and completeness.
resultsMain algorithm 2 had the highest PPV (77.4%) and shared the highest completeness (92.4%) with main algorithm 1. Information on anti-diabetic medicine and gestational diabetes increased PPV, on expense of completeness. All algorithms varied with PPV between 65.7 and 87.6% and completeness between 73.6 and 92.4%. The quantitative bias analysis indicated that PPV was underestimated, and completeness overestimated for all algorithms. For algorithm 2, corrected PPV was between 82.1 and 94.6% and corrected completeness between 84.7 and 91.2%.
conclusionsThe Danish national registries can identify type 1 diabetes in women giving live birth with a reasonably high accuracy. The registries are a valuable source for future comparative outcome studies and may also be suitable for monitoring prevalence and incidence of type 1 diabetes in women giving live birth.
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.