ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Performance of point-of-care glucose testing for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes in South Africa.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges of Wearable Biosensors and Ways to Overcome Them.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.AJOG global reports · 2026Review
- Implementation of multiparameter point-of-care testing devices for non-communicable diseases at primary healthcare level in Peru.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Performance of point-of-care glucose testing for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes in South Africa.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLack of accessibility to oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) in South Africa means many pregnant women go without testing for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This study evaluated point-of-care (POC) glucometers against the laboratory-based glucose method in pregnant women.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study on pregnant women attending the prenatal clinic in Johannesburg who were recommended for the OGTT. OGTTs were conducted as per International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines. Women who consented to the study donated both venous and capillary blood for laboratory-based and POC glucose measurements using seven POC glucometers: I-STAT, Xpress, LDX, VivaChek-Ino, Accu-Chek Active, StatStrip, and Codefree. By assessing sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and comparing Bland-Altman plots, the diagnostic accuracy of each glucose meter was compared with the reference method, the laboratory-based glucose method.
resultsData were analyzed for 1076 pregnant women. Based on OGTT testing, 83 women had GDM (7.7%). Overall, the POC glucometers performed poorly, with sensitivity ranging from 17.6% to 87.18% and specificity ranging between 62.7% and 99.8%. The AUC ranged from 0.59 to 0.79. All POC glucometers showed moderate to poor reliability. Laboratory-based fasting plasma glucose (FPG) surpassed the POC glucometers in sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, with values of 94.0%, 100%, and 0.98, respectively.
conclusionWe demonstrated that laboratory-based FPG has the potential to be used as a diagnostic test for GDM and that the POC glucometers cannot replace OGTT laboratory-based measurements.
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.