Trial reportActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2026
Perinatal and long-term implications of diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus using only fasting and one-hour post-load glucose concentrations: Secondary analysis of the GEMS trial and its five-year follow-up.
Trial report in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe proposed revised diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (GDM) in New Zealand include a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration ≥5.3 mmol/L and 1-h post-load glucose (PLG) concentration ≥10.6 mmol/L on a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but no 2-h PLG. This study evaluates the impact of GDM diagnosis based on FPG and/or 1-h PLG abnormalities on perinatal and long-term outcomes. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis secondary analysis of data from GEMS, a multicentre, randomized trial and its follow-up, included women and their children who met the proposed revised GDM criteria and received treatment. Participants were classified into three groups: (1) both group: elevated FPG and 1-h PLG, (2) fasting group: elevated FPG alone, and (3) one-hour group: elevated 1-h PLG alone. Between-group pairwise comparisons were made using log-binomial and normal-identity regressions.
resultsOf 217 eligible women-child pairs, 85 (39.2%) were in the fasting group, 61 (28.1%) in the both group, and 71 (32.7%) in the one-hour group. Women in the fasting and both groups, compared with the one-hour group, were more likely to be overweight or obese both at the first antenatal visit and five-year follow-up, more likely to have required pharmacotherapy for GDM (85.9% and 88.5% vs. 69.0%; p < 0.0001), and had higher rates of type 2 diabetes/prediabetes at 5 years (50.0% and 48.8% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.03). Their infants were born earlier (38.1 and 38.0 vs. 38.6 weeks; p = 0.02) with higher birthweight z-scores (0.2 and 0.1 vs. -0.2; p = 0.03). Infants in the fasting group, compared with infants in the one-hour group, had higher rates of being large-for-gestational age and neonatal intensive care unit admission. At 5 years, children in the fasting group, compared with those in the one-hour group, had higher mean z-scores in weight and height, and were more likely to have an abnormal developmental screening questionnaire score (24.4% vs. 5.1%; p = 0.04).
conclusionsWomen diagnosed with GDM based on an elevated FPG, compared with those with only an elevated 1-h PLG, may have had increased diabetes risks at five-year follow-up, while their children may have greater infant health risks and greater growth at 5 years.
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.