Evidence mapPaperPMID 27582574Full record

ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2016

Knowledge and Implementation of the S3 Guideline on Gestational Diabetes among Gynecologists and Diabetologists Four Years after Publication: Results of a Survey of 773 Gynecologists and 76 Diabetologists on their Knowledge of the Guideline on Gestational Diabetes (AWMF 057-008, 2011).

T Groten, S Schmitz, C Schippert, E Schleußner, P Hillemanns, T Lehmann, F von Versen-Höynck

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact, top 92% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

T GrotenAbteilung für Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
S SchmitzAbteilung für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
C SchippertAbteilung für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
E SchleußnerAbteilung für Geburtshilfe, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
P HillemannsAbteilung für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
T LehmannInstitut für Medizinische Statistik, Informatik und Dokumentation, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
F von Versen-HöynckAbteilung für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEKlinik für Frauenheilkunde · DEJena University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn S3 guideline on the diagnosis and differentiated management of gestational diabetes (GDM) was published in Germany in 2011. This guideline replaced the previously applicable recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of GDM and, for the first time, compiled evidence-based recommendations for the care of patients with GDM. The new guideline has focused particularly on the counselling offered to all patients with GDM about the associated long-term health risks. In this study we investigated the state of knowledge about the guideline among gynecologists and diabetologists in Thuringia and Lower Saxony.

methodA questionnaire with 23 questions was sent out to 773 gynecologists and 76 diabetologists providing outpatient care in Lower Saxony and Thuringia. The statistical analysis was descriptive and inferential for comparisons between groups.

resultsThe response rate was 54 %; an average of 47.6 % of the individual questions were answered correctly in the completed questionnaires. The questions were answered correctly significantly more frequently by persons in the group with a good knowledge of the guidelines (75 vs. 61 %, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups when differences between federal states or medical specialties were compared.

conclusionsThe results of our study show a good general state of knowledge of the guideline and point to a high level of willingness to implement the recommendations of the S3 guideline on GDM. With regard to the follow-up care provided to patients with GDM and depression, this study found a significant need for further training.

Indexed as

diagnosisgestational diabetesknowledgeS3 guidelinetreatment

Identifiers

PMID27582574
PMCPMC5001569
OpenAlexW2476068551

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.