Effects of weekly supervised exercise or physical activity counseling on fasting blood glucose in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus: <scp>A</scp> systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Exercise is an important part of gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM ) lifestyle management. However, no meta‐analysis has analyzed the effects of exercise programs on fasting blood glucose ( FBG ) in women with GDM . A systematic review with meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of weekly supervised exercise ( EXE ) or physical activity counseling ( PA ) in women with GDM compared with usual prenatal care ( UPN ) on glycemic control. Methods Eligible trials were identified from M edline, EMBASE , W eb of S cience, S copus and S port D iscus up to D ecember 2016. Data were retrieved from randomized controlled trials comparing UPN with UPN plus weekly supervised (at least once a week) prenatal exercise or PA counseling for which FBG values before and after intervention were available. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed for mean difference in FBG after exercise intervention. Results The search yielded 781 publications, of which 82 were assessed for eligibility and eight were included in the meta‐analysis. The overall effect on absolute FBG concentrations was not significant ( P = 0.11) compared with UPN . However, PA versus UPN showed a significant reduction in absolute FBG concentrations (weighted mean difference −3.88 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval −7.33, −0.42 mg/dL; I 2 48%; P heterogeneity < 0.15). Conclusions Physical activity counseling in women with GDM showed a significant effect compared with UPN on FBG concentrations, possibly due to a longer follow‐up time compared with the EXE groups. This result highlights the importance of an early intervention that lasts to delivery for best practice of GDM management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".