ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Perinatal outcomes following nonadherence to guideline-based screening for gestational diabetes: A population-based cohort study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perinatal outcomes following nonadherence to guideline-based screening for gestational diabetes: A population-based cohort study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal approach for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening remains controversial. Since 2003, all Canadian guidelines have recommended universal GDM screening. Some countries, such as Sweden, use selective GDM screening among those with pre-existing risk factors. In Canada, antenatal care model (midwife, general practitioner or obstetrician) is partially self-selected; thus, patient populations may differ between care models. Despite the Canadian policy of universal GDM screening, screening nonadherence is more frequent in midwife-led care. We examined perinatal outcomes according to GDM screening adherence vs. nonadherence in this population. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a population-based cohort study of singleton pregnancies and infants using linked administrative data from the province of British Columbia, Canada. We restricted the study to pregnancies with midwife-led antenatal care where GDM screening nonadherence occurred more frequently and was more likely by choice. We estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) according to GDM screening, comparing no glucose tests during pregnancy (21.4%), early glucose testing <20 weeks (5.5%), and glucose testing with alternate methods ≥20 weeks (4.0%) vs. normoglycemic pregnancies (69%) using multivariable log binomial regression. We stratified by known GDM risk factors. Our primary outcome was large for gestational age (LGA) infants. Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age infants (SGA), stillbirth, 5-min Apgar <7, birth trauma, preterm birth, cesarean birth, and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI).
resultsIn this cohort of 83 522 pregnancies, having no glucose tests in pregnancy was associated with lower risks of LGA and cesarean birth (LGA aRR 0.82; 95% CI 0.79-0.86; cesarean birth aRR 0.75; 95% CI 0.72-0.78) and higher risks of stillbirth and SGA (stillbirth aRR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.2; SGA aRR 1.2; 95% CI 1.1-1.3) compared with normoglycemic pregnancies. Stillbirth risks were further elevated (aRR 2.5; 95% CI 1.2-5.0) in strata with GDM risk factors, but not in strata without risk factors, while higher SGA risks persisted across strata.
conclusionsNonadherence to GDM screening guidelines was associated with lower risks for excess fetal growth-related outcomes (LGA, cesarean birth), but higher risks of stillbirth and SGA.
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.