Observational studyNutrients2025
Risk-Prioritised Versus Universal Medical Nutrition Therapy for Gestational Diabetes: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal application of medical nutrition therapy (MNT) in treating gestational diabetes remains uncertain. MNT involves individualised nutrition assessment and counselling, which is labour-intensive and is not the sole type of intervention offered by clinical dietitians.
objectiveTo determine whether pregnancy outcomes differed for individuals with gestational diabetes who were offered MNT on a risk-prioritised (RP) versus universal basis.
methodsObservational data from two cohorts of individuals who were offered MNT only if they met the high-risk criteria following general group-based dietary education (RP1,
resultsMNT consultations halved under the RP approach (59 vs. 119 sessions per 100 diagnoses for RP2 vs. UM) and saved more than 20 h of dietitian time per 100 diagnoses (95 vs. 73 h for RP2 vs. UM). No significant increases were observed (
conclusionsRisk-prioritised MNT was a more efficient dietetic service approach to gestational diabetes than the universal MNT model, with comparable pregnancy outcomes. Similar approaches may represent a strategic way to address sustainable health service planning amidst the rising global prevalence of this condition. However, further research is needed to investigate consumer perspectives, wider service impacts and post-partum maternal and child health outcomes.
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.