Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40742423›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2025

One-step versus two-step screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in Chinese pregnant women: a large non-randomized trial.

Jiyuan Liu, Jiani Zhang, Xiaoxue Qi, Shuo Li, Chihui Mao, Xiong-Fei Pan, Xiaodong Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyControlled Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Jiyuan LiuDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Jiani ZhangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xiaoxue QiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Shuo LiSection of Epidemiology and Population Health & Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children & National Medical Products Administration Key Laboratory for Technical Research on Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Chihui MaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xiong-Fei PanSection of Epidemiology and Population Health & Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children & National Medical Products Administration Key Laboratory for Technical Research on Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. pxiongfei@gmail.com.
Xiaodong WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. wangxd_scu@sina.com.

Funding

Science Foundation of Sichuan Province 2022YF0042
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo compare the effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes of 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (75-g OGTT) versus 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) plus 75-g OGTT for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). MATERIALS AND

methodsA non-randomized trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital between January and December 2020. Participants were assigned into the one-step (i.e., 75-g OGTT) and two-step screening (50-g GCT plus 75-g OGTT) groups. Primary outcomes were GDM, hypertensive disorder in pregnancy (HDP), macrosomia, and Cesarean section.

results2265 eligible participants were enrolled in the trial, including 1130 in the one-step group and 1135 in the two-step group. GDM was diagnosed in 197 (17.4%) participants in the one-step group and 123 (10.8%) in the two-step group (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.49, 2.54). There was only borderline statistical significance in the difference of HDP between two groups (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40, 1.01), while all other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences. In pregnant women with high risk factors for GDM (maternal age ≥ 35 years, pre-pregnancy BMI ≥ 24 kg/m

conclusionsThe one-step screening at least performs as well as the two-step screening, potentially more suitable for Chinese pregnant women with high risk factors for GDM. The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100054505) on Dec 18

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalMass ScreeningAdultCesarean SectionChinaFemaleFetal MacrosomiaGlucose Tolerance TestHumansHypertension, Pregnancy-InducedPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeGestational diabetes mellitusGlucose challenge testOral glucose tolerance testScreeningTrial

Identifiers

PMID40742423
PMCPMC12571997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.