SynthesisCadernos de saude publica2024
Gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cadernos de saude publica, 2024. 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiac magnetic resonance biomarkers for cardiovascular complications in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Telephone-based lifestyle education to prevent gestational diabetes in high-risk Iranian women: a randomized trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Factors Associated with Urinary Incontinence During Pregnancy: Clinical, Obstetric, and Metabolic Analysis.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Diagnostic criteria for gestational hyperglycemia in women from a public maternity hospital in Brazil.Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Homozygous AA Genotype of IL-17A and 14-bp Insertion Polymorphism in HLA-G 3'UTR Are Associated with Increased Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study estimates gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence in Brazil. A systematic review was conducted with articles published between 2010 and 2021 on the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, SciELO, LILACS and Virtual Health Library databases, as well as gray literature. Data were extracted using a standardized instrument together with the risk of bias assessment tool proposed by Hoy et al. A meta-analysis with robust variance and random effects was developed. Heterogeneity was verified using I2 and publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and Egger's test. Prevalence according to risk of bias, diagnostic criteria and country's regions was determined by subgroup analyses. A total of 32 studies were included, representing 21,942 women. gestational diabetes mellitus pooled prevalence was 14% (95%CI: 11.0; 16.0), considerably higher than estimates from previous studies. Regarding risk of bias, studies with low, medium, and high risk showed a pooled prevalence of 12%, 14% and 14%, respectively. Overall GRADE certainty of evidence rating was low. Most studies used the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria or the adapted IADPSG, showing a pooled prevalence of 15% and 14%, respectively. As for region, the pooled prevalence was higher in the Southeast (14%) and lower in the Central-West (9%). This is the first systematic review to provide evidence on gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence at a national level and to demonstrate considerable heterogeneity among articles and the influence of region, diagnostic criteria and study quality on the referred indicator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.