ArticleCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2025
A comparison of perinatal outcomes associated with gestational diabetes mellitus testing practices in British Columbia: A population-based retrospective cohort study.
Article in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study sought to compare one-step versus two-step testing approaches for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to investigate the associations between testing approach, degree of glucose impairment, and perinatal outcomes.
methodsA retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted by combining BC's Perinatal Data Registry with laboratory and billing information from 2010 to 2014. Pregnancy characteristics were compared by GDM testing approach. Logistic regression was conducted to determine the association between testing approach, degree of glucose impairment, and outcomes.
resultsApproximately 17% of pregnant individuals were diagnosed with GDM using the one-step test, compared to 6% using the two-step test. The odds ratios of adverse outcomes were below 1.75 for GDM pregnancies regardless of testing approach used (compared to the group with negative results on the two-step test). A dose-dependent trend was observed between increasing glucose intolerance and odds of preterm birth. The odds of large for gestational age infants (LGA) and shoulder dystocia were significantly higher when all 75 g test values were within one standard deviation below one-step diagnostic thresholds (adjOR 1.94[1.73-2.17] and 1.85[1.55-2.21], respectively).
conclusionThe frequency of GDM was three times higher with the use of the one-step test versus the two-step test. Abnormal results on the two-step test are associated with preterm birth at an odds ratio below 1.75. Pregnant individuals with one-step test results just below diagnostic criteria may be at greater odds for LGA. The benefits of more stringent testing practices need to be weighed against the impact of additional GDM diagnoses.
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.