ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Hyperglycemia in pregnancy: A sensitivity analysis study of two recommended screening tests in Tanzania.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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.
- Women's perspectives on gestational diabetes mellitus screening services during antenatal care in Tanzania.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy (HIP) is an entry point to a healthy pregnancy and childbirth for both the woman and child, and offers a window of opportunity for the prevention of cardio-metabolic complications over the life-course of the woman and newborn. In Tanzania, two different screening algorithms to identify women with HIP are recommended, with no clear understanding of which performs better. We aimed to determine the prevalence of hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP) among antenatal care (ANC) attendees and the accuracy of HIP screening tests. A cross-sectional study design involving 970 women attending ANC clinic was done in two district hospitals (Mbagala Rangi Tatu and Kisarawe) of Tanzania between June and October 2024. Socio-demographic, obstetric characteristics, and anthropometric parameters were obtained from study participants. A checklist screening test (CST) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined by the Tanzanian standard treatment guideline, was used. We tested for glycosuria and two-hour 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) on every study participant. We conducted descriptive statistics and sensitivity analysis to determine the prevalence of HIP and assess the screening performance of CST and glycosuria test against OGTT using World Health Organization 2013 diagnostic criteria for GDM. The prevalence of HIP was 10% (7.9% GDM and 2.1% diabetes in pregnancy). Glycosuria test missed all women with GDM and could identify only 20% with diabetes in pregnancy. The CST had a sensitivity and specificity of 72.2% (62.1-80.8, 95%CI) and 32.4% (29.3-35.6, 95%CI), respectively, while the glycosuria test had 4.1% (1.1-10.2, 95%CI) and 97.1% (95.8-98.1, 95%CI). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for both the CST 0.523 (0.48-0.57,95%CI) and glycosuria test 0.506 (0.49-0.53,95%CI) was low, indicating their poor discriminatory performance for HIP. One in every ten women had HIP. The CST is a better first-step screening test than the glycosuria test based on sensitivity.
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.