ReviewCureus2025
Early Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gestational diabetes mellitus is typically diagnosed between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy. However, early screening (≤20 weeks) is increasingly promoted for high-risk women despite uncertain clinical benefits. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (January 2000-March 2025) comparing early (≤ 20 weeks) versus standard (24-28 weeks) screening in women without pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Out of 4,216 records, three trials comprising 2,540 women were included. Two trials enrolled women with obesity, and the third included a broader high-risk cohort. Early screening identified more cases of gestational diabetes (15.0% vs 12.0%) but offered no clinical advantage. In two trials using the same neonatal composite, adverse events were comparable (53.7% vs 48.6%). Similarly, rates of birthweight > 4,000 g, pregnancy-related hypertension (17.9% vs 15.1%), and cesarean delivery (37.6% vs 35.5%) showed no benefit. Current evidence suggests that shifting testing to before 24 weeks does not improve maternal or neonatal outcomes and may lead to additional interventions without clear benefit. Larger pragmatic studies are needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness and determine whether targeted early screening in truly high-risk individuals can be justified.
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.