ArticleInternal medicine journal2024
Primary care management post gestational diabetes in Australia.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies to improve postpartum engagement in healthcare after high-risk conditions diagnosed in pregnancy: a narrative review.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWomen with a history of gestational diabetes (GD) have a high risk of developing diabetes and subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD).
aimTo assess whether diabetes screening and CVD risk screening occurred in general practice (GP) among postpartum women with GD.
methodsThis is a retrospective study of clinical record data of women with GD, under active GP management, from the MedicineInsight programme, run by Australia's National Prescribing Service MedicineWise, with GP sites located in Australia from January 2015 to March 2021. Documentation of screening for diabetes, assessment of lipids and measurement of blood pressure (BP) was assessed using proportions and mixed-effects logistic regression with a log follow-up time offset.
resultsThere were 10 413 women, with a mean age of 37.9 years (standard deviation, 7.6), from 406 clinics with a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 1.8-6.2 years) A total of 29.41% (3062/10 413; 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.53-30.28) had not been assessed for diabetes, 37.40% (3894/10 413; 95% CI, 36.47-38.32) were not assessed for lipids and 2.19% (228/10 413; 95% CI, 1.91-2.47) had no BP documented. In total, 51.82% (5396/10 413; 95% CI, 50.86-52.78) were screened for all three (diabetes + lipids + BP) at least once. Obesity, comorbidities and dyslipidaemia were associated with increased likelihood of screening. New diabetes diagnosis was documented in 5.73% (597/10 413; 95% CI, 5.29-6.18) of the cohort.
conclusionScreening for diabetes and hyperlipidaemia was suboptimal in this high-risk cohort of women with prior GD. Improved messaging that women with a GD diagnosis are at high cardiovascular risk may improve subsequent screening.
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.