Effective interventions in preventing gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lifestyle choices, metformin, and dietary supplements may prevent GDM, but the effect of intervention characteristics has not been identified. This review evaluated intervention characteristics to inform the implementation of GDM prevention interventions. Methods: Ovid, MEDLINE/PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework was used to examine intervention characteristics (who, what, when, where, and how). Subgroup analysis was performed by intervention characteristics. Results: 116 studies involving 40,940 participants are included. Group-based physical activity interventions (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.46, 0.95) reduce the incidence of GDM compared with individual or mixed (individual and group) delivery format (subgroup p-value = 0.04). Physical activity interventions delivered at healthcare facilities reduce the risk of GDM (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49, 0.72) compared with home-based interventions (subgroup p-value = 0.03). No other intervention characteristics impact the effectiveness of all other interventions. Conclusions: Dietary, physical activity, diet plus physical activity, metformin, and myoinositol interventions reduce the incidence of GDM compared with control interventions. Group and healthcare facility-based physical activity interventions show better effectiveness in preventing GDM than individual and community-based interventions. Other intervention characteristics (e.g. utilization of e-health) don’t impact the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions, and thus, interventions may require consideration of the local context.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".