Evidence mapPaperPMID 37294513Full record

SynthesisCurrent diabetes reports2023

Models Predicting Postpartum Glucose Intolerance Among Women with a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review.

Yitayeh Belsti, Lisa Moran, Demelash Woldeyohannes Handiso, Vincent Versace, Rebecca Goldstein, Aya Mousa, Helena Teede, Joanne Enticott

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current diabetes reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yitayeh BelstiMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Lisa MoranMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Demelash Woldeyohannes HandisoMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Vincent VersaceDeakin Rural Health, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Australia.
Rebecca GoldsteinMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Aya MousaMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Joanne EnticottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. joanne.enticott@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4480-5690
Monash University · AUMonash Health · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewDespite the crucial role that prediction models play in guiding early risk stratification and timely intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), their use is not widespread in clinical practice. The purpose of this review is to examine the methodological characteristics and quality of existing prognostic models predicting postpartum glucose intolerance following GDM. RECENT

findingsA systematic review was conducted on relevant risk prediction models, resulting in 15 eligible publications from research groups in various countries. Our review found that traditional statistical models were more common than machine learning models, and only two were assessed to have a low risk of bias. Seven were internally validated, but none were externally validated. Model discrimination and calibration were done in 13 and four studies, respectively. Various predictors were identified, including body mass index, fasting glucose concentration during pregnancy, maternal age, family history of diabetes, biochemical variables, oral glucose tolerance test, use of insulin in pregnancy, postnatal fasting glucose level, genetic risk factors, hemoglobin A1c, and weight. The existing prognostic models for glucose intolerance following GDM have various methodological shortcomings, with only a few models being assessed to have low risk of bias and validated internally. Future research should prioritize the development of robust, high-quality risk prediction models that follow appropriate guidelines, in order to advance this area and improve early risk stratification and intervention for glucose intolerance and type 2 diabetes among women who have had GDM.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Glucose IntoleranceBlood GlucoseFemaleGlucoseHumansPostpartum PeriodPregnancyBlood GlucoseGlucoseGestational diabetes mellitusGlucose intolerancePredictive modelPrognosisPrognostic modelT2DM

Identifiers

PMID37294513
PMCPMC10435618
OpenAlexW4379967021

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.