ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: New Thinking on Diagnostic Criteria.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Liver Enzyme Biomarkers Before or in Early Pregnancy as Predictors for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies · 2026Pooled it
- Prognostic Impact of Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A (PAPP-A) for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM): An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of More Than 90 000 Pregnancies.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2025Pooled it
- Trimester-specific reference interval for glycated hemoglobin in non-diabetic pregnant women: A cross-sectional study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Enhancing expertise in management of gestational diabetes mellitus: protocol for development of structured curriculum.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- PPARs, L-FABP mediate the association between Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and gestational diabetes: a nested case-control study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Workplace lactation support attenuates the association between early maternal return to work and preschool overweight/obesity in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- From Molecular Insights to Clinical Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus-A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Currently, there is a lack of standardized diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), making it a subject of ongoing debate. The optimal diagnostic method and screening strategy for GDM remain contentious. In this review, we summarize the criteria and methods for diagnosing GDM, and perform a comparison between universal and selective screening strategies. Therefore, this review aims to highlight the following: (1) The most widely adopted criteria for GDM are those established by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG). (2) Evidence from cohort studies suggests that the one-step diagnostic method is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes and appears more cost-effective compared to the two-step method. (3) Universal screening is more cost-effective than selective screening, which may overlook a significant number of women with GDM. Additionally, various methods have been proposed for early pregnancy screening (before 14 weeks). Finally, an outlook is presented for the diagnosis of GDM, emphasizing the importance of large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide stronger evidence for future support.
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.