SynthesisJournal of diabetes investigation2024
Comparing the screening methods for gestational diabetes mellitus before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes investigation, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endocrine complications of COVID-19: diabetes, musculoskeletal, thyroid, pituitary, adrenal, and gonadal disorders.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026Review
- Small Extracellular Vesicles in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Current Landscape and Emerging Diagnostic Horizons.Journal of extracellular biology · 2026Review
- Changes in diabetes screening and exercise during the COVID-19 pandemic in adults with prediabetes.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is the gold standard for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, screening practices were reevaluated due to the risk of infection associated with the prolonged hospital visit required for the OGTT. Some countries have published novel screening protocols for GDM, suggesting the utilization of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), random plasma glucose (RPG), or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in favor of OGTTs during the pandemic. Therefore, differences in screening methods before and after the epidemic need to be examined.
methodsA systematic search was carried out across five electronic databases (Cinahl, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science) between 2016 and 2023. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies was used to evaluate the quality of included papers.
resultsA total of 13 eligible studies were included. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the OGTT was the recommended measure to screen GDM, internationally based on various official guidelines. During the pandemic, it was recommended that HbA1c or FPG, or RPG be used as a substitute for OGTTs. However, the new methods have low sensitivity, may not reflect accurately the prevalence of GDM, and may lead to many false-negative results in women and to adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.
conclusionThe new screening methods for GDM have poor accuracy and a high risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Comparatively, targeted screening tests to detect GDM according to the risk level are more effective in an emergency. In the future, the alternatives to OGTTs still need to be further explored in more depth.
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.