ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Variation in gestational diabetes diagnosis and care practices in maternity services in three high-income countries; a cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited international consensus about best diagnostic and care practices for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). This impacts consistency of care and perinatal outcomes. We aimed to explore GDM diagnostic and care practices in the UK, Ireland and Australia to better understand these variations and determine areas for improvement.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals between August 2021-November 2022. The survey evaluated the use of GDM guidelines, associated diagnostic practices and post-diagnostic care. Data were descriptively analysed.
resultsSixty-three maternity centres were represented (35 England and Wales, 12 Ireland, 16 Australia). 94% of centres in England and Wales and Australia respectively used their national guidelines to select women for GDM testing, with a wider variety of guidelines used in Ireland. Over 80% of centres across countries test women for GDM based on risk-factors identified in early pregnancy. At 24–28 weeks’ gestation, 94% of Australian centres used universal screening as per national guidelines, compared with 3% of centres in England & Wales, and 50% in Ireland, where universal screening is not included in national guidelines. Risk factors used to select women for screening varied between countries and between centres within countries at both time points, with some centres using risk factors outside of their national guidelines. Diagnostic tests for GDM varied between countries and between centres within countries, and according to gestation and previous GDM. Insulin was the most common first-line treatment in Australia, whereas in Ireland and England and Wales it was Metformin. Birth was planned at differing gestations according to centre and country, and according to management strategy.
conclusionsGDM-related practices vary within and between Australia, Ireland and England and Wales. National guidelines are not adhered to in some centres, which could result in inconsistent care within countries, and could result in inequitable perinatal outcomes. Further research should address standardised, evidence-informed care and guideline implementation barriers.
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.