Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39578035›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Association between gestational diabetes mellitus diagnostic criteria and adverse pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjusted effect sizes from studies using current diagnostic criteria.

Elhassan Mahmoud, Abdalla Moustafa Elsayed, Basant Elsayed, Yasmin Elsalakawi, Aswathy Gopinath, Tawanda Chivese

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Elhassan MahmoudQatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Ad Dawhah, Qatar.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8528-0272
Abdalla Moustafa ElsayedQatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Ad Dawhah, Qatar.
Basant ElsayedQatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Ad Dawhah, Qatar.
Yasmin ElsalakawiQatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Ad Dawhah, Qatar.
Aswathy GopinathQatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Ad Dawhah, Qatar.
Tawanda ChiveseQatar University College of Medicine, Doha, Ad Dawhah, Qatar tchivese@qu.edu.qa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo quantify the association between Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) and adverse pregnancy outcomes and primarily compare the associations between diagnostic criteria following the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations and non-IADPSG criteria, which use higher blood glucose cut-offs.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies using contemporary GDM diagnostic criteria. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched for articles published between 2010 and 2023. The search was carried out on 15 May 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were observational studies that reported adjusted effect sizes for GDM-related adverse outcomes and compared outcomes between women with and without GDM, used contemporary diagnostic criteria and were conducted after 2010. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the MethodologicAl STandards for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) scale. Bias-adjusted inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis models were used to synthesise adjusted effect sizes. The same meta-analytic models were used to synthesise the overall OR and their 95% CIs for comparisons of the criteria which followed the IADPSG recommendations to other criteria, mostly with higher blood glucose cut-offs (non-IADPSG).

resultsWe included 30 studies involving 642 355 participants. GDM was associated with higher odds of maternal outcomes, namely; caesarean section (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.51) and pregnancy-induced hypertension (aOR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.34). GDM was associated with higher odds of neonatal outcomes, specifically; macrosomia (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.69), large for gestational age (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.63), preterm birth (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.64), neonatal intensive care unit admission (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.78), neonatal hypoglycaemia (aOR 3.08, 95% CI 1.80 to 5.26) and jaundice (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.91). Further analyses showed no major differences in adverse pregnancy outcomes between IADPSG and non-IADPSG criteria.

conclusionsGDM is consistently associated with adverse pregnancy, maternal and foetal outcomes, regardless of the diagnostic criteria used. These findings suggest no significant difference in risk between lower and higher blood glucose cut-offs used in GDM diagnosis.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalPregnancy OutcomeBlood GlucoseCesarean SectionFemaleFetal MacrosomiaHumansInfant, NewbornObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyBlood GlucoseDiabetes in pregnancyFetal medicineMaternal medicineMeta-AnalysisPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39578035
PMCPMC11590801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.