Evidence mapPaperPMID 19588341Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Treatments for gestational diabetes.

Nisreen Alwan, Derek J Tuffnell, Jane West

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 24 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 213 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Insulin for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Exercise for pregnant women for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nisreen AlwanNutritional Epidemiology Group, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Level 8, Room 9.01, Clarendon Way, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK, LS2 9JT.
Derek J Tuffnell
Jane West
University of Leeds · GBBradford Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGestational diabetes (GDM) affects 3% to 6% of all pregnancies. Women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and insulin. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of GDM improves perinatal outcome.

objectivesTo compare the effect of alternative treatment policies for GDM on both maternal and infant outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (January 2009) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing alternative management strategies for women with GDM and impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors and a member of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's editorial team extracted and checked data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third author. MAIN

resultsEight randomised controlled trials (1418 women) were included.Caesarean section rate was not significantly different when comparing any specific treatment with routine antenatal care (ANC) including data from five trials with 1255 participants (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.12). However, when comparing oral hypoglycaemics with insulin as treatment for GDM, there was a significant reduction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77, two trials, 90 participants). There was a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia with intensive treatment (including dietary advice and insulin) compared to routine ANC (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.88, one trial, 1000 participants). More women had their labours induced when given specific treatment compared to routine ANC (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57, two trials, 1068 participants). The composite outcome of perinatal morbidity (death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture and nerve palsy) was significantly reduced for those receiving intensive treatment for mild GDM compared to routine ANC (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, one trial, 1030 infants).There was a reduction in the proportion of infants weighing more than 4000 grams (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.63, one trial, 1030 infants) and the proportion of infants weighing greater than the 90th birth centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99, three trials, 223 infants) of mothers receiving specific treatment for GDM compared to routine ANC. However, there was no statistically significant difference in this proportion between infants of mothers receiving oral drugs compared to insulin as treatment for GDM. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSpecific treatment including dietary advice and insulin for mild GDM reduces the risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. However, it is associated with higher risk of labour induction. More research is needed to assess the impact of different types of intensive treatment, including oral drugs and insulin, on individual short- and long-term infant outcomes.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGlucose Tolerance TestHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID19588341
PMCPMC7154381
OpenAlexW1918278386

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.