Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443958›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2024

Subsidized gestational diabetes mellitus screening and management program in rural China: a pragmatic multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Tingting Xu, Qing Xia, Xiaozhen Lai, Kun He, Dazhi Fan, Liangkun Ma, Hai Fang

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Tingting XuDepartment of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100069, China.
Qing XiaAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Xiaozhen LaiSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, 100083, China.
Kun HeNational Children's Medical Center, Children's Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, 201102, China.
Dazhi FanFoshan Fetal Medicine Research Institute, Affiliated Women and Children Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangdong, 528000, China.
Liangkun MaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hai FangSchool of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, 100083, China. hfang@hsc.pku.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-1409-3917
Peking University · CNCapital Medical University · CNChildren's Hospital of Fudan University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNFoshan Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital · CNQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

China Medical Board 17-266National Natural Science Foundation of China 71774006National Natural Science Foundation of China 72204172Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality 9222013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major challenge, particularly in rural areas of China where control rates are suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a GDM subsidy program in promoting GDM screening and management in these underserved regions.

methodsThis multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in obstetric clinics of six rural hospitals located in three provinces in China. Eligible participants were pregnant women in 24-28 weeks' gestation, without overt diabetes, with a singleton pregnancy, access to a telephone, and provided informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control groups using an internet-based, computer-generated randomization system. The intervention group received subsidized care for GDM, which included screening, blood glucose retesting, and lifestyle management, with financial assistance provided to health care providers. In contrast, the control group received usual care. The primary outcomes of this study were the combined maternal and neonatal complications associated with GDM, as defined by the occurrence of at least one pre-defined complication in either the mother or newborn. The secondary outcomes included the GDM screening rate, rates of glucose retesting for pregnant women diagnosed with GDM, dietary patterns, physical activity levels, gestational weight gain, and antenatal visit frequency for exploratory purposes. Primary and secondary outcomes were obtained for all participants with and without GDM. Binary outcomes were analyzed by the generalized linear model with a link of logistic, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Count outcomes were analyzed by Poisson regression, and incidence rate ratios with 95% CIs were reported.

resultsA total of 3294 pregnant women were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 1649) or the control group (n = 1645) between 15 September 2018 and 30 September 2019. The proportion of pregnant women in the intervention group who suffered from combined maternal and/or neonatal complications was lower than in the control group with adjusted OR = 0.86 (0.80 to 0.94, P = 0.001), and a more significant difference was observed in the GDM subgroup (adjusted OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, P = 0.025). No predefined safety or adverse events of ketosis or ketoacidosis associated with GDM management were detected in this study. Both the intervention and control groups had high GDM screening rates (intervention: 97.2% [1602/1649]; control: 94.5% [1555/1645], P < 0.001). Moreover, The intervention group showed a healthier lifestyle, with lower energy intake and more walking minutes (P values < 0.05), and more frequent blood glucose testing (1.5 vs. 0.4 visits; P = 0.001) compared to the control group.

conclusionIn rural China, a GDM care program that provided incentives for both pregnant women and healthcare providers resulted in improved maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Public health subsidy programs in China should consider incorporating GDM screening and management to further enhance reproductive health.

trial registrationChina Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800017488. https://www.chictr.org.cn/.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalBlood GlucoseChinaFamilyFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyBlood GlucoseGestational diabetes mellitusMaternal complicationsNeonatal complicationsRandomized controlled trialSubsidy

Identifiers

PMID38443958
PMCPMC10916202
OpenAlexW4392447791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.