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 Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus and SportDiscus up to December 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".