Cited by 284Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsPregnancy and Medication Impact

Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

Open access
Brown, Julie, Alwan, Nisreen A, West, Jane, Brown, Stephen, McKinlay, Christopher JD, Farrar, Diane, Crowther, Caroline A·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term adverse effects for the mother and her infant. Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for many women with GDM. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of combined lifestyle interventions with or without pharmacotherapy in treating women with gestational diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14th May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials comparing a lifestyle intervention with usual care or another intervention for the treatment of pregnant women with GDM. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. All selection of studies, data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS: = 0.12; moderate-quality evidence). Diabetes and adiposity in adulthood and neurosensory disability in later childhoodwere not prespecified or reported as outcomes for any of the trials included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for women with GDM. Women receiving lifestyle interventions were less likely to have postnatal depression and were more likely to achieve postpartum weight goals. Exposure to lifestyle interventions was associated with a decreased risk of the baby being born LGA and decreased neonatal adiposity. Long-term maternal and childhood/adulthood outcomes were poorly reported.The value of lifestyle interventions in low-and middle-income countries or for different ethnicities remains unclear. The longer-term benefits or harms of lifestyle interventions remains unclear due to limited reporting.The contribution of individual components of lifestyle interventions could not be assessed. Ten per cent of participants also received some form of pharmacological therapy. Lifestyle interventions are useful as the primary therapeutic strategy and most commonly include healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations.Future research could focus on which specific interventions are most useful (as the sole intervention without pharmacological treatment), which health professionals should give them and the optimal format for providing the information. Evaluation of long-term outcomes for the mother and her child should be a priority when planning future trials. There has been no in-depth exploration of the costs 'saved' from reduction in risk of LGA/macrosomia and potential longer-term risks for the infants.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd011970.pub2

Cites

162 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MNT combined with physical activity significantly improves glycaemic control during pregnancy and reduces the risk of macrosomia and neonatal adiposity.

    “A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials demonstrated that MNT combined with physical activity significantly improves glycaemic control during pregnancy and reduces the risk of macrosomia and neonatal adiposity [9].”

    From Medical Nutrition Therapy for Women with Gestational Diabetes: Current Practice and Future Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    The review reports lower postprandial glucose and HbA1c, reduced macrosomia, and lower neonatal fat mass with lifestyle interventions (Glycaemic control during/after treatment; Neonatal death; Birthweight and z score; pages unavailable). But its pooled interventions were not uniformly MNT combined with physical activity, and it found no clear difference in fasting blood glucose. Neonatal fat mass was reported by only one trial, so the sentence overgeneralizes those results to the specified combination. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a Cochrane review, the average risk reduction from lifestyle interventions on HDP was 0.70 (95% CI 0.40-1.22; four trials, 2,796 women; I2 = 79%; low-quality evidence).

    “In another Cochrane review248, the average risk reduction from lifestyle interventions on HDP was 0.70 (95% CI 0.40–1.22; four trials, 2,796 women; I2 = 79%; low-quality evidence).”
  • Women receiving appropriate advice on diet and physical activity are more likely to meet postpartum weight goals one year after delivery.

    “Furthermore, women receiving appropriate advice on diet and physical activity are more likely to meet postpartum weight goals one year after delivery [9].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 167 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Julie Brown guarantees this review.
  2. Julie Brown wrote the first version of this review and identified studies for inclusion along with Stephen Brown. She also was undertook data extraction and assessed risk of bias. She prepared the GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. The remaining authors Nisreen A Alwan; Jane West, Stephen Brown, Christopher JD McKinlay, Diane Farrar and Caroline Crowther have all contributed to interpretation of the data from clinical, paediatric and expert opinions and have provided significant feedback to draft versions, including the GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. Declarations of interest Julie Brown: none known.
  3. Bancroft K, Tuffnell DJ, Mason GC, Rogerson LJ, Mansfield M. A randomised controlled study of the management of impaired glucose tolerance in pregnancy. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998;105(Suppl 17):53-4.
  4. Moss JR, Crowther CA, Hiller JE, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS, Willson KJ. Costs and consequences of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus -evaluation from the ACHOIS randomised trial [abstract]. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 2007; 43(1):A28-A29.
  5. Klebanoff M, for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Treatment of gestational diabetes (GDM) weight gain and perinatal outcome -marginal structural model (MSM) analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011;173(Suppl):S41.
  6. Mendleson SG. A Community-Based Parish Nurse Intervention Program for Mexican American Women with Gestational Diabetes [thesis]. Los Angeles: University of California, 2007.
  7. Abirami P, Judie A. Reduction of risk on newly detected gestational diabetes mellitus by multi model intervention -A hospital based study. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research 2014;6(4):370-4.
  8. Langer O, Anyaegbunam A, Brustman L, Divon M. A prospective randomized study: management of women with one abnormal value (OGTT) reduces adverse outcome in pregnancy. In: Proceedings of 9th Annual Meeting of the Society of Perinatal Obstetricians; 1989 Feb 1-4; New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 1989:11.
  9. O'Sullivan 1971 * O'Sullivan JB, Charles D, Dandrow RV. Treatment of verified prediabetics in pregnancy. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1971;7:21-4.
  10. Chamberlain C, McNamara B, Williams E, Yore D, Oldenburg B, Oats J, et al. Diabetes in pregnancy among indigenous women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 2013; 29(4):241-56.
  11. Ju H, Rumbold AR, Willson KJ, Crowther CA. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2008;8:31.
  12. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
  13. World Health Organization. WHO Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Hyperglycaemia First Detected in Pregnancy. Report WHO/NMH/MND/13.2 edition. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2013.
  14. Other published versions of this review Alwan 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, J., Alwan, N. A., West, J., Brown, S., McKinlay, C. J., Farrar, D., & Crowther, C. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
  • Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
  • Bradford Royal Infirmary (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-04
Volume
2017
Issue
5
Pages
CD011970-CD011970
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2268674176
Cited by
284
References
167
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (13/89/05)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K021656/1)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Evidence Synthesis Programme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, lifestyle intervention, pharmacotherapy, postpartum depression, postpartum weight, large for gestational age, neonatal adiposity, maternal glucose control, healthy eating, physical activity, self-monitoring of blood glucose, low- and middle-income countries, ethnic differences, infant neurodevelopmental outcomes
MeSH terms
Body Weight, Cesarean Section, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Diet, Diabetic, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Postmature, Labor, Induced, Life Style, Patient Education as Topic, Perineum, Pre-Eclampsia, Pregnancy, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Exercise, Body Mass Index, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Diabetes, Gestational, Depression, Postpartum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review