Evidence mapPaperPMID 32703290Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2020

Magnitude of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in an urban setting in Tanzania; a cross-sectional analytic study.

Akampa Mukuve, Mariam Noorani, Ibrahim Sendagire, Miriam Mgonja

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Akampa MukuveDepartment of Family Medicine, Post Graduate Medical Education, Aga Khan University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. akampamukuvem@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4414-4300
Mariam NooraniDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aga Khan University, P.O BOX 38129, Plot 42, Ufukoni Road, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Ibrahim SendagireMSF/Epicentre Mbarara Research Centre, Mbarara, Uganda.
Miriam MgonjaDepartment of Pediatrics and Child Health, Aga Khan University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Aga Khan University · TZEpicentre Uganda · UG

Funding

AGA KHAN UNIVERSITY NOT APPLICABLE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical screening detects risk factors for disease or presence of disease in otherwise well persons in order to intervene early and reduce morbidity and mortality. During antenatal care (ANC) it is important to detect conditions that complicate pregnancy, like gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Despite international and local guidelines recommending screening for GDM during ANC, there is evidence to suggest that the practice was not being carried out adequately. A major challenge may be lack of consensus on uniform GDM screening and diagnostic guidelines internationally and locally. The primary objective was to determine the magnitude of screening for GDM among women receiving ANC at the Aga Khan Hospital, Dar es Salaam and Muhimbili National Hospital, Dar es Salaam. Secondary objectives were: to determine the methods used by health practitioners to screen for GDM, to determine the magnitude of undiagnosed gestational diabetes mellitus among women attending ANC and factors associated with screening for GDM among these women.

methodsA cross-sectional analytical study was done. Data collection was done using pre-tested questionnaires and reviewing antenatal care records. The proportion of women attending ANC who were screened for GDM was determined. The 75 g Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) was offered to women who had not been screened after education and consent.

resultsOnly 107 out of 358 (29.9%) had been offered some form of GDM screening. Tests used for GDM screening were random blood sugar (56.8%), fasting blood sugar (32.8%), HbA1C (6%) and 75 g OGTT (3.4%). The uptake of the OGTT was 27%. Of these women the prevalence of GDM was 27.9%. Factors associated with screening for GDM were history of big baby, history of pregnancy induced hypertension and participant awareness of GDM (all p: < 0.05).

conclusionsScreening for GDM among women attending ANC was lower than the World Health Organization target. Efforts should be directed towards promoting GDM screening, increasing awareness about GDM and developing more effective screening methods.

Indexed as

AdultBlood GlucoseCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGestational AgeGlucose Tolerance TestHumansMass ScreeningPregnancyPrenatal CarePrevalenceRisk FactorsTanzaniaUrban PopulationYoung AdultBlood GlucoseHyperglycaemia in pregnancyScreeningTanzania

Identifiers

PMID32703290
PMCPMC7379358
OpenAlexW3043889860

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.