ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2024
Risk prediction models for postpartum glucose intolerance in women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 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.
- Traditional statistics and artificial intelligence-based prognostic models for predicting type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes: a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- GDM as a unique pathophysiological entity or a transitional pregnancy-induced glucose metabolism abnormality identifying primary diabetes types?Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Correlation Between Blood Glucose Variability Indices Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Gestational Diabetes Patients and Abnormal Glucose Levels 42 Days Postpartum.Journal of diabetes research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this scoping review was to investigate the effectiveness and limitations of risk prediction models for postpartum glucose intolerance in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The aim was to provide valuable insights for healthcare professionals in the development of robust risk prediction models. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science Core Collection, Ovid Full-Text Medical Journal Database, ProQuest, Elsevier ClinicalKey, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, and WanFang Database, spanning from January 1990 to July 2023. To assess the quality of the included models, the Predictive Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was employed. Results: Fourteen relevant studies were identified and included in the final review, all focusing on model development. The discrimination ability of the included models ranged from 0.725 to 0.940, indicating satisfactory prediction accuracy. However, a notable limitation was that nine of these models (64.3%) did not provide clear guidelines on the selection of potential predictors. Furthermore, only six models (42.86%) underwent internal validation, with none undergoing external validation. A high risk of bias was observed across the included models. Logistic regression, Cox regression, and machine learning were the primary methods employed in the construction of these models. Conclusion: The risk prediction models included in this review demonstrated favorable prediction accuracy. However, due to variations in construction methodologies, direct comparison of their performance is challenging. These models exhibited certain shortcomings, such as inadequate handling of missing data and a lack of internal and external validation, resulting in a high risk of bias. Therefore, it is recommended that these models be updated and externally validated. The development of prospective, multi-center studies is encouraged to construct predictive models with low risk of bias and high clinical applicability, ultimately guiding evidence-based clinical practice. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01330-1.
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.