Trial reportFrontiers in endocrinology2022
One-step versus two-step screening for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in Iranian population: A randomized community trial.
Trial report in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does fasting plasma glucose values 5.1-5.6 mmol/l in the first trimester of gestation a matter?Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Trial
- Prevalence of and factors associated with gestational diabetes mellitus and diabetes in pregnancy in Bangladesh: a facility-based cross-sectional study (2019-2020).The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2026Article
- How the First 9 Months Shape the Rest of Your Life: The Impact of Gestational Diabetes on the Metabolic Future.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- Evaluation of fetal frontal lobe development and Evans index in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus: prospective comparative observational study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Observational
- Comprehensive Review of Gestational Diabetes: Pathophysiology, Pharmacological Management and the Role of Pharmaceutical Care.Current drug safety · 2026Review
- Opportunity Screening for Early Detection of Gestational Diabetes: Results from the MERGD Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond one size fits all: Probing patient choices in gestational diabetes management, from screening to postpartum.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2025Review
- Sirtuins and Their Implications in the Physiopathology of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: There is considerable worldwide controversy regarding optimal screening and diagnostic approaches for GDM. This study aimed to compare the prevalence, maternal and neonatal outcomes of a One-step with a Two-step approach for the screening and diagnosis of GDM in a large community sample of pregnant women. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized community non-inferiority trial of GDM screening in Iran. For the current study, all pregnant women who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups for GDM screening. The first group of women (n = 14611) was screened by a One-step screening approach [75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)] and the second group (n = 14160) by a Two-step method (the 50-g glucose challenge test followed by the 100-g OGTT). All study participants were followed up until delivery, and the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded in detail. Results: GDM was diagnosed in 9.3% of the pregnant women who were assigned to the One-step and in 5.4% of those assigned to the Two-step approach with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.001). Intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant differences between the One-step and the Two-step group in the unadjusted risks of the adverse pregnancy outcomes of macrosomia, primary cesarean-section, preterm birth, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, hyperbilirubinemia, preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, birth trauma, low birth weight, and intrauterine fetal death. Results remained unchanged after adjustment for potential confounder variables including gestational age at enrollment and delivery, maternal body mass index, gestational weight gain, type of delivery, treatment modality, and GDM diagnosis in the first trimester. Conclusion: We found that although the rates of GDM more than doubled with the One-step strategy, the One-step approach was similar to the Two-step approach in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes. These findings may warn that more caution should be exercised in adopting the One-step method worldwide. Future research is needed to assess the long-term harm and benefits of those approaches to GDM screening for both mothers and their offspring. Clinical trial registration: https://www.irct.ir/trial/518, identifier (IRCT138707081281N1).
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.