ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024
Effect of interpregnancy interval on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus during a second pregnancy.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting gestational diabetes before conception for personalized interpregnancy weight management.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- History of large-for-gestational-age birth is independently associated with subsequent gestational diabetes in Chinese multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterpregnancy interval (IPI) is associated with the risk of GDM in a second pregnancy. However, an optimal IPI is still need to be determined based on the characteristics of the population. This study aimed to analyze the effect of interpregnancy interval (IPI) on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the Chinese population.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study on female participants who had consecutive deliveries at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from 2013 to 2021. The IPI was categorized into 7 groups and included into the multivariate logistic regression model with other confound factors. Analysis was also stratified based on age of first pregnancy, BMI, and history of GDM. Adjusted OR values (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. The regression coefficient of IPI months on GDM prediction risk was analyzed using a linear regression model.
resultsA total of 2,392 participants were enrolled. The IPI of the GDM group was significantly greater than that of the non-GDM group (P < 0.05). Compared with the 18-24 months IPI category, participants with longer IPIs (24-36 months, 36-48 months, 48-60 months, and ≥ 60 months) had a higher risk of GDM (aOR:1.585, 2.381, 2.488, and 2.565; 95% CI: 1.021-2.462, 1.489-3.809, 1.441-4.298, and 1.294-5.087, respectively). For participants aged < 30 years or ≥ 30 years or without GDM history, all longer IPIs (≥ 36 months) were all significantly associated with the GDM risk in the second pregnancy (P < 0.05), while any shorter IPIs (< 18 months) was not significantly associated with GDM risk (P > 0.05). For participants with GDM history, IPI 12-18 months, 24-36 months, 36-48 months, and ≥ 60 months were all significantly associated with the GDM risk (aOR: 2.619, 3.747, 4.356, and 5.373; 95% CI: 1.074-6.386, 1.652-8.499, 1.724-11.005, and 1.078-26.793, respectively), and the slope value of linear regression (0.5161) was significantly higher compared to participants without a history of GDM (0.1891) (F = 284.168, P < 0.001).
conclusionsLong IPI increases the risk of GDM in a second pregnancy, but this risk is independent of maternal age. The risk of developing GDM in a second pregnancy for women with GDM history is more significantly affected by IPI.
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.