Evidence mapPaperPMID 12027921Full record

ReviewDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2002

Screening for gestational diabetes; past, present and future.

F W F Hanna, J R Peters

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01795248 (The Impact of Liraglutide on Glucose Tolerance and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Women With Previous Gestational Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

NCT01795248 phase4completedstarted 2012, after this paper: background citation

The Impact of Liraglutide on Glucose Tolerance and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Women With Previous Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Ran2012Enrolled105Registered outcomes18Posted comparisons0ConditionsGestational Diabetes MellitusArmsliraglutide, Placebo
Open the trial in the graph
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Adherence rates to a prediction tool identifying women with an increased gestational diabetes risk: An implementation study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

F W F HannaPrince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, UK.
J R Peters
Prince Charles Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gestational diabetes is carbohydrate intolerance, with onset or first recognition of hyperglycaemia during pregnancy. Several studies have suggested that gestational hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, promoting the case for screening. Conversely, others argue that screening for gestational diabetes may colour the clinical judgement, influencing further management, e.g. more 'unjustified' caesarean sections. Additionally, the lack of definitive data either on a clear-cut glycaemic threshold for the development of adverse outcomes or on the impact of intervention is emphasized by opponents of screening. This review attempts to evaluate the available data on screening for gestational diabetes. Oral glucose tolerance test is promoted on the basis that the diabetogenic stress of pregnancy is encountered during late gestation and is best recognized in the fed state. There are different tests, including the 1 h/50-g, 2 h/75-g and 3 h/100-g tests, with practical limitations, including the time and cost involved and the unpleasant supra-physiological glucose load that is unrelated to body weight, and issues of reproducibility and sensitivity/specificity profiles. Despite its convenience, the poor sensitivity of random glucose has precluded its routine use for screening. Fasting glucose appears to be promising but further testing is required to ensure satisfactory sensitivity/specificity in different populations. Despite its limitations, the oral glucose tolerance test has become established as the 'most acceptable' diagnostic test for gestational diabetes. More convenient methods, e.g. fasting or random or post-load glucose, have to be validated therefore against the oral glucose tolerance test to gain acceptance for routine screening.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGestational AgeGlucose Tolerance TestHumansMass ScreeningPregnancySensitivity and SpecificityBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID12027921
OpenAlexW1524128957

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.