SynthesisBMC endocrine disorders2025
Association between the null polymorphisms of GSTT1 and GSTM1 and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC endocrine 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between the null polymorphisms of the GSTT1 and GSTM1 genes and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus has been previously investigated. However, these scattered evidence remained controversial. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to synthesize previous findings and statistically estimate whether these polymorphic variants are associated with the risk of this common pregnancy complication.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Clarivate Web of Science, Elsevier Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost (from inception to February 28, 2025), using a predefined search strategy. The methodological quality of each study was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated to measure the effect size. In addition, heterogeneity, sensitivity, and publication bias were also examined. All statistical tests were performed using the R language (version 4.4.2) and STATA software (version 14.2). This study followed the PRISMA 2020 statement, and the protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420250621255).
resultsFor the deletion polymorphism of GSTT1, seven studies with 1012 cases and 1081 controls were integrated into the pooled estimation. For the null variant of GSTM1, seven datasets with 1012 diabetic and 1081 control individuals were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates showed statistical significance for the null polymorphisms of GSTT1 (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.08–1.89, P = 0.01) and GSTM1 (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.68–2.39, P < 0.01). The symmetric funnel plot shape and statistical tests of publication bias suggested no substantial file drawer problem. However, the pooled estimates of the GSTT1 null polymorphism lost statistical significance in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and Galbraith plot-guided heterogeneity adjustment.
conclusionThe results suggested that the null polymorphisms of GSTT1 and GSTM1 may be associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Notably, the association for the GSTT1 null polymorphism was not robust and warrants further confirmation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.