Evidence mapPaperPMID 40642675Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Early Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Nisreen Ali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Nisreen AliObstetrics and Gynecology, Kanad Hospital, Abu Dhabi, ARE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

early screeninggestational diabetesmaternal outcomesneonatal outcomesrandomized trials

Identifiers

PMID40642675
PMCPMC12244858

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.