Evidence mapPaperPMID 24438478Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

Screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in primary versus secondary care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Angela O'Dea, Jennifer J Infanti, Paddy Gillespie, Olga Tummon, Samuel Fanous, Liam G Glynn, Brian E McGuire, John Newell, Fidelma P Dunne

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Angela O'DeaSchool of Medicine, Clinical Sciences Institute, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. angela.odea@nuigalway.ie.
Jennifer J Infanti
Paddy Gillespie
Olga Tummon
Samuel Fanous
Liam G Glynn
Brian E McGuire
John Newell
Fidelma P Dunne

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe risks associated with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are well recognized, and there is increasing evidence to support treatment of the condition. However, clear guidance on the ideal approach to screening for GDM is lacking. Professional groups continue to debate whether selective screening (based on risk factors) or universal screening is the most appropriate approach. Additionally, there is ongoing debate about what levels of glucose abnormalities during pregnancy respond best to treatment and which maternal and neonatal outcomes benefit most from treatment. Furthermore, the implications of possible screening options on health care costs are not well established. In response to this uncertainty there have been repeated calls for well-designed, randomised trials to determine the efficacy of screening, diagnosis, and management plans for GDM. We describe a randomised controlled trial to investigate screening uptake rates and the clinical and cost effectiveness of screening in primary versus secondary care settings. METHODS/

designThis will be an unblinded, two-group, parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT). The target population includes 784 women presenting for their first antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation at two hospitals in the west of Ireland: Galway University Hospital and Mayo General Hospital. Participants will be offered universal screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks gestation in either primary care (n=392) or secondary care (n=392) locations. The primary outcome variable is the uptake rate of screening. Secondary outcomes include indicators of clinical effectiveness of screening at each screening site (primary and secondary) including gestational week at time of screening, time to access antenatal diabetes services for women diagnosed with GDM, and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes for women with GDM. In addition, parallel economic and qualitative evaluations will be conducted. The trial will cover the period from the woman's first hospital antenatal visit at 12 to 18 weeks gestation, until the completion of the pregnancy.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN02232125.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsPatient Acceptance of Health CareResearch DesignBiomarkersBlood GlucoseClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGestational AgeGlucose Tolerance TestHumansIrelandPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeBiomarkersBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID24438478
PMCPMC3899741

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.