ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Gestational diabetes and stillbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Globally, around 2 million pregnancies each year end in stillbirth, with the majority occurring in low and middle-income countries. The association between gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and stillbirth has been widely researched but the evidence is increasingly controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the risk of stillbirth associated with GDM, and examine whether this risk differs according to country income status and GDM screening method. Methods: We searched Scopus, Cinahl, Cochrane Central, ISRCTN, Medline, Embase and Epistemonikos on the 9th May 2025 from inception to May 2025 with no restrictions based on language, study location or time. We included cohort studies that estimated the association of interest. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis by study design and sub-group analyses by country income level and GDM screening method. (PROSPERO CRD4201800057). Findings: 101 included studies (92,915,856 women) presented unadjusted results, 19 reported adjusted results (63,629,536 women). Meta-analysis of adjusted cohort data did not show evidence of an association between a diagnosis of GDM and the risk of stillbirth worldwide (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.97; I Interpretation: Increased screening, timely diagnosis and effective management strategies for GDM in high-income countries, such as induction of labour and increased antenatal care, may be responsible for the reduced risk of stillbirth in women with GDM. Further research is needed to identify the optimum strategy for screening and management in low and middle-income settings to reduce preventable stillbirths worldwide. Funding: None.
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.