Evidence mapPaperPMID 22258997Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Interventions for pregnant women with hyperglycaemia not meeting gestational diabetes and type 2 diabetes diagnostic criteria.

Shanshan Han, Caroline A Crowther, Philippa Middleton

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shanshan HanARCH: Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University ofAdelaide, Adelaide, Australia. shan.han@adelaide.edu.au.
Caroline A Crowther
Philippa Middleton
Women's and Children's Hospital · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnancy hyperglycaemia without meeting gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnostic criteria affects a significant proportion of pregnant women each year. It is associated with a range of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Although intensive management for women with GDM has been proven beneficial for women and their babies, there is little known about the effects of treating women with hyperglycaemia who do not meet diagnostic criteria for GDM and type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

objectivesTo assess the effects of different types of management strategies for pregnant women with hyperglycaemia not meeting diagnostic criteria for GDM and T2DM (referred as borderline GDM in this review). SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and cluster-randomised trials comparing alternative management strategies for women with borderline GDM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN

resultsWe included four trials involving 543 women and their babies (but only data from 521 women and their babies is included in our analyses). Three of the four included studies had moderate to high risk of bias and one study was at low to moderate risk of bias. Babies born to women receiving management for borderline GDM (generally dietary counselling and metabolic monitoring) were less likely to be macrosomic (birthweight greater than 4000 g) (three trials, 438 infants, risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.74) or large-for-gestational (LGA) age (three trials, 438 infants, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.66) when compared with those born to women in the routine care group. There were no significant differences in rates of caesarean section (three trials, 509 women, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27) and operative vaginal birth (one trial, 83 women, RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 9.27) between the two groups. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review found interventions including providing dietary advice and blood glucose level monitoring for women with pregnancy hyperglycaemia not meeting GDM and T2DM diagnostic criteria helped reduce the number of macrosomic and LGA babies without increasing caesarean section and operative vaginal birth rates. It is important to notice that the results of this review were based on four small randomised trials with moderate to high risk of bias without follow-up outcomes for both women and their babies.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseCesarean SectionDiabetes, GestationalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleFetal MacrosomiaGlucose Tolerance TestHumansHyperglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInfant, NewbornInfant, PostmatureInsulinPatient Education as TopicPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID22258997
PMCPMC8939248
OpenAlexW1881514109

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.