Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34168734›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of diabetes2021

Estimated impact of introduction of new diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus.

Leon de Wit, Anna B Zijlmans, Doortje Rademaker, Christiana A Naaktgeboren, J Hans DeVries, Arie Franx, Rebecca C Painter, Bas B van Rijn

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of diabetes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  5. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Leon de WitDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht 3584 EA, Netherlands.
Anna B ZijlmansDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede 6716 RP, Netherlands.
Doortje RademakerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers- Location AMC, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, Netherlands.
Christiana A NaaktgeborenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-Location AMC, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, Netherlands.
J Hans DeVriesDepartment of Endocrinology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-Location AMC, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, Netherlands.
Arie FranxDepartment of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Erasmus MC Sophia Children Hospital, Rotterdam 3015 GD, Netherlands.
Rebecca C PainterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers-Location AMC, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, Netherlands.
Bas B van RijnDepartment of Obstetrics and Fetal Medicine, Erasmus MC Sophia Children Hospital, Rotterdam 3015 GD, Netherlands. b.vanrijn@erasmusmc.nl.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NLUtrecht University · NLZiekenhuis Gelderse Vallei · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementation of new diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are still a subject of debate, mostly due to concerns regarding the effects on the number of women diagnosed with GDM and the risk profile of the women newly diagnosed.

aimTo estimate the impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 criteria compared with the WHO 1999 criteria on the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus as well as to determine the diagnostic accuracy for detecting adverse pregnancy outcomes.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a single center Dutch cohort of 3338 women undergoing a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test where the WHO 1999 criteria to diagnose GDM were clinically applied. Women were categorized into four groups: non-GDM by both criteria, GDM by WHO 1999 only (excluded from GDM), GDM by WHO 2013 only (newly diagnosed) and GDM by both criteria. We compared maternal characteristics, pregnancy outcomes and likelihood ratios for adverse pregnancy outcomes.

resultsRetrospectively applying the WHO 2013 criteria increased the cohort incidence by 13.1%, from 19.3% to 32.4%. Discordant diagnoses occurred in 21.3%; 4.1% would no longer be labelled as GDM, and 17.2% were newly diagnosed. Compared to the non-GDM group, women newly diagnosed were older, had higher rates of obesity, higher diastolic blood pressure and higher rates of caesarean deliveries. Their infants were more often delivered preterm, large-for-gestational-age and were at higher risk of a 5 min Apgar score < 7. Women excluded from GDM were older and had similar pregnancy outcomes compared to the non-GDM group, except for higher rates of shoulder dystocia (4.3%

conclusionApplying the WHO 2013 criteria would result in a substantial increase in GDM diagnoses. Newly diagnosed women are at increased risk for pregnancy adverse outcomes. This risk, however, seems to be lower than those identified by the WHO 1999 criteria. This could potentially influence the treatment effect that can be achieved in this group. Evidence on treatment effects in newly diagnosed women is urgently needed.

Indexed as

Diagnostic criteriaGestational diabetesGlucose tolerance testIncidencePregnancy outcome

Identifiers

PMID34168734
PMCPMC8192254
OpenAlexW3171612354

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.