Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25326416›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015

Diabetes and congenital heart defects: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and modeling project.

Regina M Simeone, Owen J Devine, Jessica A Marcinkevage, Suzanne M Gilboa, Hilda Razzaghi, Barbara H Bardenheier, Andrea J Sharma, Margaret A Honein

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Effect of maternal diabetes on fetal heart function on echocardiography: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Risk of minor congenital heart defect in infants conceived via assisted reproductive technology: cohort study from the Copenhagen Baby Heart Study.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Molecular Pathways and Animal Models of d-Transposition of the Great Arteries.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Review
  17. Updating an Overview of Teratology.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

8 authors.

Regina M SimeoneNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Electronic address: rsimeone@cdc.gov.
Owen J DevineNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
Jessica A MarcinkevageNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Suzanne M GilboaNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
Hilda RazzaghiNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Barbara H BardenheierNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.
Andrea J SharmaNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Atlanta, Georgia.
Margaret A HoneinNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextMaternal pregestational diabetes (PGDM) is a risk factor for development of congenital heart defects (CHDs). Glycemic control before pregnancy reduces the risk of CHDs. A meta-analysis was used to estimate summary ORs and mathematical modeling was used to estimate population attributable fractions (PAFs) and the annual number of CHDs in the U.S. potentially preventable by establishing glycemic control before pregnancy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic search of the literature through December 2012 was conducted in 2012 and 2013. Case-control or cohort studies were included. Data were abstracted from 12 studies for a meta-analysis of all CHDs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Summary estimates of the association between PGDM and CHDs and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) were developed using Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses for all CHDs and specific CHD subtypes. Posterior estimates of this association were combined with estimates of CHD prevalence to produce estimates of PAFs and annual prevented cases. Ninety-five percent uncertainty intervals (95% UIs) for estimates of the annual number of preventable cases were developed using Monte Carlo simulation. Analyses were conducted in 2013. The summary OR estimate for the association between PGDM and CHDs was 3.8 (95% CrI=3.0, 4.9). Approximately 2670 (95% UI=1795, 3795) cases of CHDs could potentially be prevented annually if all women in the U.S. with PGDM achieved glycemic control before pregnancy.

conclusionsEstimates from this analysis suggest that preconception care of women with PGDM could have a measureable impact by reducing the number of infants born with CHDs.

Indexed as

Pregnancy in DiabeticsBlood GlucoseFemaleHeart Defects, CongenitalHumansModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodPregnancyBlood Glucose

Identifiers

PMID25326416
PMCPMC4455032

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.