Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31196116›Full record

ReviewBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Current guidelines on the management of gestational diabetes mellitus: a content analysis and appraisal.

Mengxing Zhang, Yingfeng Zhou, Jie Zhong, Kairong Wang, Yan Ding, Li Li

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Mengxing ZhangFudan University Centre for Evidence-based Nursing: A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yingfeng ZhouFudan University Centre for Evidence-based Nursing: A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. zyingfeng@fudan.edu.cn.
Jie ZhongFudan University Centre for Evidence-based Nursing: A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Kairong WangFudan University Centre for Evidence-based Nursing: A Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yan DingObstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Li LiObstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

2015 Nursing Research Project of Fudan University FNF201502Foundation of Shanghai Municipal Commission of Health and Family Planning 201640324
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite many guidelines for the management of gestational diabetes available internationally, little work has been done to summarize and assess the content of existing guidelines. A paucity of analysis guidelines within in a unified system may be one explanatory factor. So this study aims to analyze and evaluate the contents of all available guidelines for the management of gestational diabetes.

methodRelevant clinical guidelines were collected through a search of relevant guideline websites and databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, etc.). Fourteen guidelines were identified, and each guideline was assessed for quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Two independent reviewers extracted guideline recommendations using a "recommendation matrix" through which basic guideline information and consistency between search strategy and selection of evidence, between selected evidence and interpretation, and between interpretation and resulting recommendations were analyzed.

resultsFourteen documents were analyzed, and a total of 361 original recommendations for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) management were assessed. In all guidelines included, the recommendations were developed in five domains, namely, diagnosis of GDM, prenatal care, intrapartum care, neonatal care and postpartum care. Different guidelines appeared to have significant discrepancy in consistency of guideline content, but overall, there was consistency between search strategy and selection of evidence, between selected evidence and interpretation, and between interpretation and resulting recommendations (scilicet 49.31, 57.20 and 58.17%, respectively).

conclusionAlthough commonality in most recommendations existed, there were still some discrepancies between guidelines. Consistency of guidelines on the management of GDM in pregnancy is highly variable and needs to be improved.

Indexed as

Patient Care ManagementDiabetes, GestationalFemaleHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyClinical practice guidelineContent analysis methodGestational diabetes mellitusRecommendation matrix

Identifiers

PMID31196116
PMCPMC6567433

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.