ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
A randomized controlled trial comparing two antenatal care regimes in the management of mild to moderate gestational diabetes in a low-middle income country.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the Indian subcontinent has increased exponentially, especially after new diagnostic criteria. Identifying women who need close monitoring is a challenge. Ultrasound has been used to guide therapy but its use in the management of GDM has been used indiscriminately due to paucity of information. The use of ultrasound to guide the number of antenatal visits for adequate glycemic control has not been researched adequately. There is also a need to contrive antenatal care strategies that can obtain optimal neonatal outcomes without burdening the health system in low-middle income countries (LMIC). Aims: Our study was to compare pragmatic standard management of GDM with an ultrasound-guided regime (USGR) to prevent neonatal complications to ensure optimal care. Settings and Designs: A randomized controlled trial was done in a tertiary hospital between May 2019 and September 2021 in South India. Methods and Materials: Five hundred and eighty-eight women were randomized to a standard regime or USGR. Statistical Analysis: χ Results: Maternal and neonatal outcomes between standard and ultrasound USGR showed no significant difference in outcomes. Fetuses in USGR with AC ≥ 70 Conclusion: This small well-designed study did not show any advantage with USGR as compared to the pragmatic simple standard regime, in the treatment of women with GDM.
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.