ArticlePloS one2026
Adherence to gestational diabetes screening guidelines: Retrospective audit in three public hospitals in Ethiopia.
Article in PloS one, 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
Abstract
introductionGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major contributor to adverse perinatal outcomes. Most guidelines recommend universal GDM screening using standardized testing protocols, yet implementation in low- and middle-income countries remains limited. This study evaluated GDM screening uptake and guideline-concordant testing in routine antenatal care in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
methodsWe conducted a facility-based, cross-sectional study of pregnant women receiving antenatal care in three public hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A sample of 1,050 antenatal records was abstracted for women who were ≥28 weeks of gestation and/or had delivered during March to May 2025. Using a structured checklist, we extracted maternal and obstetric characteristics, documentation of any GDM screening, risk-based indications for screening, gestational age at testing, screening methods, and GDM diagnosis. We described uptake and adherence to guideline-recommended GDM screening. Logistic regression was used to estimate crude odds ratios (COR) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for factors associated with being screened.
resultsThe mean (±SD) age of participants was 27.7 (± 5.0) years. Approximately one-third (29.4%) were pregnant for the first time. Overall, 139/1050 women were screened for GDM, yielding a screening rate of 13.2%. Median gestational age at screening was 34 weeks [IQR 30-37]; only 8.6% of screened women were tested in the recommended 24-28-weeks window. The oral glucose tolerance test was the predominant method (87.8%). Screening was almost exclusively risk-based (99.3%), where testing was prompted by clinical indications including polyhydramnios, advanced maternal age, and a prior history of macrosomic birth. Among screened women, 57/139 (41.0%) were diagnosed with GDM. In adjusted analysis, facility site (hospital C), older maternal age, higher parity and earlier gestational age at first antenatal care were independently associated with higher odds of being screened.
conclusionIn three public hospitals in Addis Ababa, GDM screening uptake was low. The screening practice was also delayed, and risk-based. Being screened was associated with hospital site, older maternal age, higher parity, and earlier first antenatal care attendance. These findings suggest addressing patient-level factors and facility-tailored implementation strategies to achieve universal, timely GDM screening in routine antenatal care workflows.
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.