ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Integrated care of diabetes during pregnancy: a Qatari nationwide cohort.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of AI in Predicting the Progression of Gestational Diabetes to Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Review of Service Provision and Practice at a Maternity Center.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gestational Diabetes Diagnosed Early in Pregnancy: Effects on Pregnancy Outcomes and Gestational Weight Gain.International journal of endocrinology · 2026Article
- Gestational diabetes and stillbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Maternal DNA methylation signatures of gestational diabetes across all stages of pregnancy.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gestational Diabetes Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Metformin use in gestational diabetes is not associated with an increased risk of preterm labor and small for gestational age infants compared to diet control alone.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Myo-inositol supplementation in gestational diabetes mellitus: is there any interference with diet?Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Differential Effects of First and Third Trimester HbA1c Levels on Neonatal Weight and Placental Mediation in Type 1 Diabetes.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetes in pregnancy (DIP) is associated with adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. DIP is classified as either pre-existing or new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM), which is classified into gestational DM (GDM) and newly detected type 2 (N-T2D). All pregnant women in Qatar who are not known to have pre-existing DM are offered screening for DIP during the first antenatal care visit and after 24 weeks gestation. The study aims to report the DIP screening rates, the prevalence of DIP, and the impact of the universal screening program on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included all women who gave birth in Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) hospitals between 2019 and 2022. New-onset DIP was defined using the WHO-2013 criteria. The primary outcomes were the screening rates and the prevalence of DIP in Qatar. The secondary outcomes were the difference in preterm delivery, C-section, macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), small for gestational age (SGA), and intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) between women with or without GDM. Findings: We included 94,422 women who gave birth to 96,017 neonates (85.7%) out of 112,080 neonates born nationwide. The number of women with pre-existing diabetes was 2496 women. Of 91,926 eligible women, 77,372 (84.2%) were screened for DIP. The prevalence of GDM is 31.6% (95% CI: 31.3-32.0%); N-T2D is 2.2% (95% CI: 2.1-2.3%), and pre-existing Type 2 DM and Type 1 DM was 2.6% (95% CI: 0.8-3.0%) and 0.2% (0.19-0.25), respectively. Compared to the non-GDM group, women with GDM were older (30.8 ± 5.3 versus 29.7 ± 5.2 years, p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, women with GDM had lower risk of IUFD and SGA (0.63 [95% CI 0.50-0.80, p < 0.001], 0.88 [95% CI 0.84-0.92, p < 0.001] respectively) but higher risk of C-section and LFD (1.07 [95% CI 1.04-1.10, p < 0.001], 1.09 [95% CI 1.01-1.15, p = 0.01], respectively, compared to women with no-GDM. Interpretation: Of the women eligible for screening, 84.2% were screened by the DIP program in Qatar. The prevalence of DIP in Qatar is 36.9%. Integrated care is critical for the screening and management of diabetes during pregnancy. Fundings: The authors did not receive any funding for this project.
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.