ArticleEndocrine2024
Development and internal validation of a clinical score to predict neonatal hypoglycaemia in women with gestational diabetes.
Article in Endocrine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGestational diabetes (GD) is a risk factor for neonatal hypoglycaemia (NH), but other factors can increase this risk.
objectivesTo create a score to predict NH in women with GD.
methodsRetrospective study of women with GD with a live singleton birth between 2012 and 2017 from the Portuguese GD registry. Pregnancies with and without NH were compared. A logistic regression was used to study NH predictors. Variables independently associated with NH were used to score derivation. The model's internal validation was performed by a bootstrapping. The association between the score and NH was assessed by logistic regression.
resultsWe studied 10216 pregnancies, 410 (4.0%) with NH. The model's AUC was 0.628 (95%CI: 0.599-0.657). Optimism-corrected c-index: 0.626. Points were assigned to variables associated with NH in proportion to the model's lowest regression coefficient: insulin-treatment 1, preeclampsia 3, preterm delivery 2, male sex 1, and small-for-gestational-age 2, or large-for-gestational-age 3. NH prevalence by score category 0-1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5 was 2.3%, 3.0%, 4.5%, 6.0%, 7.4%, and 11.5%, respectively. Per point, the OR for NH was 1.35 (95% CI: 1.27-1.42). A score of 2, 3, 4, 5 or ≥6 (versus ≤1) had a OR for NH of 1.67 (1.29-2.15), 2.24 (1.65-3.04), 2.83 (2.02-3.98), 3.08 (1.83-5.16), and 6.84 (4.34-10.77), respectively.
conclusionPer each score point, women with GD had 35% higher risk of NH. Those with ≥6 points had 6.8-fold higher risk of NH compared to a score ≤1. Our score may be useful for identifying women at a higher risk of NH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38602617What 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.