ArticleJournal of diabetes and metabolic disorders2025
The association between gestational diabetes mellitus and cancer in women: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and the risk of various cancers, including breast, cervical, and uterine cancers, using data from studies published between 1998 and 2025. Methods: A comprehensive search of international databases identified 1,207 unique records, from which 23 studies were included, comprising both case-control and cohort designs. The studies, conducted across multiple countries, investigated GDM's association with different types of cancers. Data were pooled and analyzed using random-effects models, and heterogeneity, publication bias, and subgroup analyses were assessed. Results: The meta-analysis revealed no significant association between GDM and breast cancer risk (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89-1.06), with considerable heterogeneity (I² = 70.21%). For cervical cancer, no significant association was found (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.76-1.10), with minimal heterogeneity (I² = 0.25%). Uterine cancer also showed no significant association with GDM (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.72-1.47). The analysis revealed consistent findings across different diagnostic methods for GDM and cancer, with no significant publication bias detected. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis found no significant overall association between GDM and the risk of breast, cervical, or uterine cancers. However, variations across studies suggest that factors such as geographic region, study design, and diagnostic methods may influence the observed associations. Further research with larger, more homogeneous samples is needed to clarify the potential links between GDM and cancer risk. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-025-01633-5.
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.