Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277691›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2021

Adherence rates to a prediction tool identifying women with an increased gestational diabetes risk: An implementation study.

Pim van Montfort, Hubertina C J Scheepers, Ivo M A van Dooren, Linda J E Meertens, Laure Wynants, Maartje Zelis, Iris M Zwaan, Marc E A Spaanderman, Luc J M Smits

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2021. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Pim van MontfortDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Hubertina C J ScheepersDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ivo M A van DoorenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sint Jans Gasthuis Weert, Weert, The Netherlands.
Linda J E MeertensDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Laure WynantsDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maartje ZelisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Iris M ZwaanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands.
Marc E A SpaandermanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sint Jans Gasthuis Weert, Weert, The Netherlands.
Luc J M SmitsDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLSt.Jans Gasthuis Weert · NLLaurentius Ziekenhuis · NLZuyderland Medisch Centrum · NL

Funding

ZonMw (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; federal funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe best screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains a topic of debate. Several organizations made a statement in favor of universal screening, but the volume of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) required may burden healthcare systems. As a result, many countries still rely on selective screening using a checklist of risk factors, but reported diagnostic characteristics vary. Moreover, women's discomfort due to an OGTT is often neglected. Since 2017, obstetric healthcare professionals in a Dutch region assessed women's GDM risk with a prediction model and counseled those with an increased risk regarding an OGTT.

methodsFrom 2017 to 2018, 865 women were recruited in a multicenter prospective cohort.

resultsIn total, 385 women (48%) had an increased predicted GDM risk. Of all women, 78% reported that their healthcare professional discussed their GDM risk. Predicted GDM risks were positively correlated with conducting an OGTT.

conclusionImplementation of a GDM prediction model resulted in moderate rates of OGTTs performed in general, but high rates in high-risk women. As 25% of women experienced discomfort from the OGTT, a selective screening strategy based on a prediction model with a high detection rate may be an interesting alternative to universal screening. STUDY COHORT REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR4143; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4143.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultCohort StudiesDiabetes, GestationalFemaleGlucose Tolerance TestHumansMass ScreeningNetherlandsPregnancyProspective StudiesRisk Factorsgestational diabetes mellitusoral glucose tolerance testpredictionpregnancyscreening

Identifiers

PMID33277691
PMCPMC8247415
OpenAlexW3108871458

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.