Evidence mapPaperPMID 35628864Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Proteomics Studies in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Natthida Sriboonvorakul, Jiamiao Hu, Dittakarn Boriboonhirunsarn, Leong Loke Ng, Bee Kang Tan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. 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
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Natthida SriboonvorakulDepartment of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-0721-2113
Jiamiao HuEngineering Research Centre of Fujian-Taiwan Special Marine Food Processing and Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Fuzhou 100816, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6489-9877
Dittakarn BoriboonhirunsarnDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-5901-5923
Leong Loke NgDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
Bee Kang TanDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5836-0613
University of Leicester · GBMahidol University · THMinistry of Education · TWSiriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R020981/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is the most common metabolic complication during pregnancy and is associated with serious maternal and fetal complications such as pre-eclampsia and stillbirth. Further, women with GDM have approximately 10 times higher risk of diabetes later in life. Children born to mothers with GDM also face a higher risk of childhood obesity and diabetes later in life. Early prediction/diagnosis of GDM leads to early interventions such as diet and lifestyle, which could mitigate the maternal and fetal complications associated with GDM. However, no biomarkers identified to date have been proven to be effective in the prediction/diagnosis of GDM. Proteomic approaches based on mass spectrometry have been applied in various fields of biomedical research to identify novel biomarkers. Although a number of proteomic studies in GDM now exist, a lack of a comprehensive and up-to-date meta-analysis makes it difficult for researchers to interpret the data in the existing literature. Thus, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis on proteomic studies and GDM. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to January 2022. We searched Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library, which were searched from inception to February 2021. We included cohort, case-control and observational studies reporting original data investigating the development of GDM compared to a control group. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies for meta-analysis. Data collection and analyses were performed by two independent reviewers. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42020185951. Of 120 articles retrieved, 24 studies met the eligibility criteria, comparing a total of 1779 pregnant women (904 GDM and 875 controls). A total of 262 GDM candidate biomarkers (CBs) were identified, with 49 CBs reported in at least two studies. We found 22 highly replicable CBs that were significantly different (nine CBs were upregulated and 12 CBs downregulated) between women with GDM and controls across various proteomic platforms, sample types, blood fractions and time of blood collection and continents. We performed further analyses on blood (plasma/serum) CBs in early pregnancy (first and/or early second trimester) and included studies with more than nine samples (nine studies in total). We found that 11 CBs were significantly upregulated, and 13 CBs significantly downregulated in women with GDM compared to controls. Subsequent pathway analysis using Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) bioinformatics resources found that these CBs were most strongly linked to pathways related to complement and coagulation cascades. Our findings provide important insights and form a strong foundation for future validation studies to establish reliable biomarkers for GDM.

Indexed as

gestational diabetes mellitusmeta-analysispregnancyproteomicssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35628864
PMCPMC9143836
OpenAlexW4280601199

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.