MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404366454 · doi:10.1186/s12902-024-01781-4

Impact of gestational diabetes mellitus on women’s sexual function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4404366454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mahsa Maghalian, Mojgan Mirghafourvand‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Endocrine Disorders · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TabrizTabriz University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesDiabetes mellitusMeta-analysisSexual functionSystematic reviewObstetricsMEDLINEPregnancyInternal medicineEndocrinologyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a prevalent pregnancy complication with well-established adverse effects on maternal and fetal health. However, research on its impact on sexual health is inconsistent. Currently, there is no comprehensive review on sexual function in pregnant women with GDM. The purpose of this study is to systematically gather and synthesize the available evidence, addressing this important research gap. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis utilized a comprehensive literature search strategy and incorporated the following databases: the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, SID, and Google Scholar. The search was conducted until February 21, 2024. The quality of the cross-sectional and case‒control studies included in the current study was evaluated via the modified and standard Newcastle‒Ottawa scale. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. A meta-regression was conducted to examine the variables that influence total sexual function. Additionally, sequential analysis was performed to determine the required information size for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The systematic search process yielded a total of 370 studies. The final analysis included six studies. The meta-analysis findings revealed that compared with controls, women with GDM had significantly lower total scores for sexual function (SMD - 1.80, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.15, p = 0.03), sexual desire (SMD - 5.14, 95% CI -8.14 to -2.14, p < 0.001), arousal (SMD - 0.58, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.21, p = 0.002), lubrication (MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.22, p < 0.001) and satisfaction (SMD - 3.82, 95% CI -6.08 to -1.57, p < 0.001). However, the analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in sexual pain, or orgasm between the GDM and control groups. The meta-regression analysis revealed that older age in the control group was associated with poorer sexual function. CONCLUSION: Compared with control women, pregnant women diagnosed with GDM have lower sexual function. Further research with larger sample sizes is necessary to enhance the robustness of the evidence, given the low level of certainty. Healthcare providers should focus on the sexual well-being of women with GDM and create tailored interventions to address their specific needs.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.040
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.395
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Endocrine DisordersSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207