MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177019420 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000899

Diagnosis and Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: An Overview of National and International Guidelines

2021· review· en· W3177019420 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesNiceGuidelineObstetricsPregnancyObstetrics and gynaecologyIncidence (geometry)Diabetes mellitusGynecologyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) represents one of the most frequent complications of pregnancy and is associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity. Its incidence is rising, mostly due to an increase in maternal age and maternal obesity rate. Objective The aim of this study was to review and compare the recommendations of the most recently published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of this condition. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review of guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society (ADIPS), the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Diabetes Association, and the Endocrine Society on gestational diabetes mellitus was carried out. Results The NICE guideline recommends targeted screening only for women with risk factors, whereas the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, ADIPS, SOGC, and the ACOG recommend screening for all pregnant women at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation in order to diagnose and effectively manage GDM; they also state that women with additional risk factors should be screened earlier (ie, in the first trimester) and retested at 24 to 28 weeks, if the initial test is negative. These guidelines describe similar risk factors for GDM and suggest the same thresholds for the diagnosis of GDM when using a 75-g 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test. Of note, the NICE only assesses the fasting and the 2-hour postprandial glucose levels for the diagnosis of GDM. Moreover, the SOGC and the ACOG do not recommend this test as the optimal screening method. The Endocrine Society alone, on the other hand, recommends the universal testing of all pregnant women for diabetes before 13 weeks of gestation or as soon as they attend the antenatal service and retesting at 24 to 28 weeks if the initial results are normal. In addition, there is a general consensus on the appropriate ultrasound surveillance of pregnancies complicated with GDM, and all the medical societies, except the ADIPS, recommend self-monitoring of capillary glucose to assess the glycemic control and set the same targets for fasting and postprandial glucose levels. There is also agreement that lifestyle modifications should be the first-line treatment; however, the reviewed guidelines disagree on the medical management of GDM. In addition, there are controversies regarding the timing of delivery, the utility of hemoglobin A 1c measurement, and the postpartum and lifelong screening for persistent hyperglycemia and type 2 diabetes. However, all the guidelines state that all women in pregnancies complicated by GDM should undergo a glycemic test at around 6 to 12 weeks after delivery. Finally, there is a universal consensus on the importance of breastfeeding and preconception screening before future pregnancies. Conclusions As GDM is an increasingly common complication of pregnancy, it is of paramount importance that inconsistencies between national and international guidelines should encourage research to resolve the issues of controversy and allow uniform international protocols for the diagnosis and management of GDM, in order to safely guide clinical practice and subsequently improve perinatal and maternal outcomes. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to identify all available screening methods for gestational diabetes mellitus; describe diagnostic procedures for gestational diabetes mellitus; and explain appropriate management issues during the antenatal, intrapartum, and postpartum period in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.412
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.072 · 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