One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the one-step with the two-step approaches for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM. RESULTS: Three RCTs (n = 2333 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 910 were randomized to the one step approach (75 g, 2 hrs), and 1423 to the two step approach. No significant difference in the incidence of GDM was found comparing the one step versus the two step approaches (8.4 versus 4.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95%CI 0.77-3.48). Women screened with the one step approach had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth (PTB) (3.7 versus 7.6%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27-0.88), cesarean delivery (16.3 versus 22.0%; RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.99), macrosomia (2.9 versus 6.9%; RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22-0.82), neonatal hypoglycemia (1.7 versus 4.5%; RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.16-0.90), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (4.4 versus 9.0%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29-0.84), compared to those randomized to screening with the two step approach. CONCLUSIONS: The one and the two step approaches were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of GDM. However, the one step approach was associated with better maternal and perinatal outcomes.
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 | 0.021 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".