MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800537826 · doi:10.2337/dc18-0102

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Diet: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Examining the Impact of Modified Dietary Interventions on Maternal Glucose Control and Neonatal Birth Weight

2018· review· en· W2800537826 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer M. Yamamoto, Joanne Kellett, Montserrat Balsells, Apolonia García‐Patterson, Eran Hadar, Iván Solà, Ignasi Gich, Eline M. van der Beek, Eurídice Castañeda‐Gutiérrez, Seppo Heinonen, Moshe Hod, Kirsi Laitinen, Sjúrđur F. Olsen, Lucilla Poston, Ricardo Rueda, Petra Rust, Lilou van Lieshout, Bettina Schelkle, Rosa Corcoy

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPostprandialGestational diabetesBirth weightDiabetes mellitusPsychological interventionPregnancyMeta-analysisGestational ageInternal medicineRelative riskObstetricsLow birth weightMedical nutrition therapyPediatricsGestationEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE Medical nutrition therapy is a mainstay of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment. However, data are limited regarding the optimal diet for achieving euglycemia and improved perinatal outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether modified dietary interventions are associated with improved glycemia and/or improved birth weight outcomes in women with GDM when compared with control dietary interventions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Data from published randomized controlled trials that reported on dietary components, maternal glycemia, and birth weight were gathered from 12 databases. Data were extracted in duplicate using prespecified forms. RESULTS From 2,269 records screened, 18 randomized controlled trials involving 1,151 women were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that for modified dietary interventions when compared with control subjects, there was a larger decrease in fasting and postprandial glucose (−4.07 mg/dL [95% CI −7.58, −0.57]; P = 0.02 and −7.78 mg/dL [95% CI −12.27, −3.29]; P = 0.0007, respectively) and a lower need for medication treatment (relative risk 0.65 [95% CI 0.47, 0.88]; P = 0.006). For neonatal outcomes, analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials including 841 participants showed that modified dietary interventions were associated with lower infant birth weight (−170.62 g [95% CI −333.64, −7.60]; P = 0.04) and less macrosomia (relative risk 0.49 [95% CI 0.27, 0.88]; P = 0.02). The quality of evidence for these outcomes was low to very low. Baseline differences between groups in postprandial glucose may have influenced glucose-related outcomes. As well, relatively small numbers of study participants limit between-diet comparison. CONCLUSIONS Modified dietary interventions favorably influenced outcomes related to maternal glycemia and birth weight. This indicates that there is room for improvement in usual dietary advice for women with GDM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.030
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations294
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207