CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,122Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchPregnancy and Medication Impact

A Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Treatment for Mild Gestational Diabetes

Open access
Landon, Mark B., Spong, Catherine Y., Thom, Elizabeth, Carpenter, Marshall W., Ramin, Susan M., Casey, Brian, Wapner, Ronald J., Varner, Michael W. +11 more·2009·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa0902430PMC PMC2804874
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether treatment of mild gestational diabetes mellitus improves pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Women who were in the 24th to 31st week of gestation and who met the criteria for mild gestational diabetes mellitus (i.e., an abnormal result on an oral glucose-tolerance test but a fasting glucose level below 95 mg per deciliter [5.3 mmol per liter]) were randomly assigned to usual prenatal care (control group) or dietary intervention, self-monitoring of blood glucose, and insulin therapy, if necessary (treatment group). The primary outcome was a composite of stillbirth or perinatal death and neonatal complications, including hyperbilirubinemia, hypoglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and birth trauma. RESULTS: A total of 958 women were randomly assigned to a study group--485 to the treatment group and 473 to the control group. We observed no significant difference between groups in the frequency of the composite outcome (32.4% and 37.0% in the treatment and control groups, respectively; P=0.14). There were no perinatal deaths. However, there were significant reductions with treatment as compared with usual care in several prespecified secondary outcomes, including mean birth weight (3302 vs. 3408 g), neonatal fat mass (427 vs. 464 g), the frequency of large-for-gestational-age infants (7.1% vs. 14.5%), birth weight greater than 4000 g (5.9% vs. 14.3%), shoulder dystocia (1.5% vs. 4.0%), and cesarean delivery (26.9% vs. 33.8%). Treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus, as compared with usual care, was also associated with reduced rates of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension (combined rates for the two conditions, 8.6% vs. 13.6%; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment of mild gestational diabetes mellitus did not significantly reduce the frequency of a composite outcome that included stillbirth or perinatal death and several neonatal complications, it did reduce the risks of fetal overgrowth, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, and hypertensive disorders. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069576.)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0902430

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

11 of 27 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation

    The trial findings confirm a modest benefit from identifying and treating women with mild carbohydrate intolerance during pregnancy.

    “Overall, consistent with findings from the ACHOIS trial, the findings from our trial confirm a modest benefit from the identification and treatment of women with mild carbohydrate intolerance during pregnancy.8”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Premisecitation

    Women with gestational diabetes and very elevated fasting blood glucose appear at increased risk for fetal macrosomia and perinatal complications if untreated.

    “Women with gestational diabetes who have very elevated fasting blood glucose levels appear to be at an increased risk for fetal macrosomia and perinatal complications if treatment is not provide,5”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] source

      Two searches of Langer et al. (2005), “Gestational diabetes: The consequences of not treating,” returned no full-text snippets, and an abstract was not available in the provided tool results. The closest unscoped match, “Association Between Maternal Fasting Plasma Glucose Value and Fetal Weight Among Singletons of Mothers with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus” (score 0.687), discusses glucose and macrosomia but does not establish the claim about untreated patients or attribute it to Langer et al. The citation is plausible, but this evidence cannot directly confirm it or justify a misattribution verdict. (LLM, conf=0.58)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    ACHOIS also showed a reduction in shoulder dystocia when women with mild gestational diabetes received treatment (1% vs 3% untreated).

    “Consistent with the results of our trial, the ACHOIS trial also showed a reduction in the rate of shoulder dystocia when women with mild gestational diabetes mellitus received treatment (1%, vs. 3% in the untreated group).8”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
  • Premisecitation

    The HAPO study described a strong continuous association between maternal glucose concentrations and increasing birth weight, cord-blood serum C-peptide, and other perinatal complication markers, even below usual diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes.

    “The recent Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study, however, described a strong continuous association between maternal glucose concentrations and increasing birth weight, cord-blood serum C-peptide levels, and other markers of perinatal complications, even at glucose concentrations below those that are usually diagnostic of gestational diabetes mellitus.6”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] source
      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    The frequency of shoulder dystocia was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the control group (1.5% vs 4.0%).

    “However, there were significant reductions with treatment as compared with usual care in several prespecified secondary outcomes, including mean birth weight (3302 vs. 3408 g), neonatal fat mass (427 vs. 464 g), the frequency of large-for-gestational-age infants (7.1% vs. 14.5%), birth weight greater than 4000 g (5.9% vs. 14.3%), shoulder dystocia (1.5% vs. 4.0%), and cesarean delivery (26.9% vs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Randomization was performed by the coordinating center using the simple urn method, stratified by clinical center.

    “Women who met these criteria were randomly assigned by the coordinating center, with the use of the simple urn method,11 stratified by clinical center.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ACHOIS showed that treatment did not reduce rates of symptomatic neonatal hypoglycemia or jaundice requiring phototherapy.

    “The results of the ACHOIS trial showed that treatment did not reduce the rates of symptomatic neonatal hypoglycemia or jaundice requiring phototherapy.8”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] source

      The primary-outcomes results report no significant difference in jaundice requiring phototherapy. Table 4 in the secondary-outcomes section reports no significant reduction in neonatal hypoglycemia requiring IV therapy, but the paper does not identify that outcome as symptomatic hypoglycemia. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Several professional organizations have recommended screening most pregnant women for gestational diabetes despite little evidence that identifying and treating mild carbohydrate intolerance confers benefit.

    “Several professional organizations have recommended screening for gestational diabetes mellitus for most pregnant women despite little evidence that the identification and treatment of mild carbohydrate intolerance during pregnancy confer a benefit.1,7”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] 2006, Diabetes Care source

      The “Diagnosis of GDM” section recommends testing women at average or high risk and says that earlier recommendations called for screening all pregnancies. It does not assess whether identifying and treating mild carbohydrate intolerance confers benefit, or establish recommendations by several professional organizations. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [7] 2001, Obstet Gynecol source
      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Gestational diabetes is a recognized marker for increased risk of subsequent diabetes.

    “Although gestational diabetes mellitus is a recognized marker for an increased risk of subsequent diabetes, its clinical significance with respect to various adverse pregnancy outcomes has been uncertain.2,4”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Two searches of Jovanovic’s 2001 JAMA paper, “Gestational Diabetes Mellitus,” returned no full-text snippets, so the attributed statement could not be checked directly. An unscoped search found the same general finding in “Characterization of Former Gestational Diabetes Mellitus” (score 0.711), but that does not show Jovanovic’s paper omits it or that the claim belongs exclusively to another source. The available evidence does not justify a misattribution verdict. (LLM, conf=0.62)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [4] source

      Semantic Scholar does not index the cited Buchanan and Kjos (1999) paper, so its abstract and full text could not be checked. Other papers support the general claim: a retrospective account of Buchanan and Kjos’s research reports that women with gestational diabetes had a high risk of developing diabetes within five years (search score 0.592). That account does not establish that the specific 1999 paper makes the claim, and no distinct source met the threshold for misattribution. (LLM, conf=0.60)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ACHOIS concluded that treatment reduces serious perinatal complications and may improve health-related quality of life.

    “The Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS), a large, randomized trial of treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus, concluded that treatment reduces serious perinatal complications and may also improve health-related quality of life.8”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Body-mass index at delivery and weight gain from enrollment to delivery were lower in the treatment group than in the control group.

    “Both the body-mass index at delivery and weight gain from enrollment to delivery were lower among women in the treatment group than among those in the control group (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Cesarean delivery was significantly less common in the treatment group than in the control group (26.9% vs 33.8%; P=0.02).

    “However, there were significant reductions with treatment as compared with usual care in several prespecified secondary outcomes, including mean birth weight (3302 vs. 3408 g), neonatal fat mass (427 vs. 464 g), the frequency of large-for-gestational-age infants (7.1% vs. 14.5%), birth weight greater than 4000 g (5.9% vs. 14.3%), shoulder dystocia (1.5% vs. 4.0%), and cesarean delivery (26.9% vs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The rates of neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, birth trauma, and elevated cord-blood C-peptide did not differ significantly between treatment and control.

    “The individual rates of neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, birth trauma, and elevated cord-blood C-peptide level did not differ significantly between the two groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    An external data and safety monitoring committee periodically reviewed trial results.

    “During the course of the trial, an external data and safety monitoring committee periodically reviewed the trial results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Compliance with glycemic monitoring was verified, and whether target glucose thresholds were achieved was documented.

    “In contrast with previous randomized trials involving women with gestational diabetes mellitus, we verified compliance with glycemic monitoring and documented whether target glucose thresholds were achieved.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All cases of hypertensive disorders and shoulder dystocia underwent masked central review by two authors to ensure diagnostic accuracy.

    “All cases of hypertensive disorders and shoulder dystocia underwent masked central review by two of the authors to ensure that the diagnoses were accurate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The primary analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle.

    “The primary analysis of the clinical trial was conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Baseline demographic variables and oral glucose-tolerance test results did not differ significantly between treatment and control.

    “There were no significant differences in demographic variables or results of the oral glucose-tolerance test between the women in the treatment group and those in the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Associations among macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and increased risk of brachial plexus injury in offspring of women with diabetes are well documented.

    “Associations among macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and the increased risk of brachial plexus injury in the offspring of women with diabetes are well documented.26”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] McFarland LV, 1986, Obstet Gynecol

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The overall preeclampsia rate in this study was substantially lower than in ACHOIS, probably because this study used more stringent diagnostic criteria.

    “The overall rate of preeclampsia in our study was substantially lower than that in the ACHOIS study, which is probably explained by our use of more stringent diagnostic criteria.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Naylor and colleagues suggested that recognizing maternal gestational diabetes may lower the threshold for operative delivery, mitigating potential benefits of treatment in reducing fetal overgrowth.

    “Naylor and colleagues suggested that simply the recognition that the mother has gestational diabetes mellitus may lead to a lower threshold for operative delivery, thus mitigating the potential benefits of treatment in reducing fetal overgrowth.24”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    ACHOIS included an ethnically homogeneous group with greater hyperglycemia than this study's more diverse population.

    “The ACHOIS trial, however, included an ethnically homogeneous group of women who had a greater degree of hyperglycemia than that in our more diverse study population.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Diagnosis or knowledge of gestational diabetes has been reported to be associated with an increase in several adverse maternal outcomes.

    “The diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus, or the knowledge that it is present, has been reported to be associated with an increase in several adverse maternal outcomes.29”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [29] source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are associated with increased maternal complications and are a major contributor to preterm delivery among women with gestational diabetes.

    “Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are associated with an increased rate of maternal complications and are a major contributor to preterm delivery among women with gestational diabetes mellitus.30”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Cousins L. Obstetric complications in diabetic pregnancies. In: Reece EA, Coustan DR, Gabbe SG, eds. Diabetes in women: adolescence, pregnancy, and menopause. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004:351-70.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines concluded that evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefit and harm for screening and treatment of gestational diabetes.

    “Despite these findings, the 2008 guidelines of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force again concluded that current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance between benefit and harm with respect to the screening and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus.9”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] 2008, Ann Intern Med source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Labor induction and cesarean delivery may be less common in academic medical centers, including the centers in this study.

    “Labor induction and cesarean delivery may be less commonly performed in academic medical centers, including the centers that participated in this study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
21 of 21

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?

  • In the ACHOIS study, the composite endpoint was significantly reduced with antihyperglycemic intervention, and there was lower weight gain by 1.7 kg on average and lower incidence of LGA.

    “In the ACHOIS study, the composite endpoint (neonatal death, perinatal injury, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia and hyperinsulinemia) was significantly reduced with antihyperglycemic intervention, and there was also a lower weight gain (by 1.7 kg on average) and a lower incidence of LGA.”

    From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion reports that ACHOIS found fewer serious perinatal complications with treatment. But the listed composite components are this paper’s own primary outcome, not an ACHOIS endpoint established by the cited passages. The Results report lower weight gain and fewer large-for-gestational-age infants in this paper’s trial, without establishing the claimed 1.7 kg difference for ACHOIS. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The expected benefits of using IADPSG criteria to the offspring are inferred from intervention trials that focused on individuals with lower levels of hyperglycemia than those identified using older GDM diagnostic criteria; those trials found modest benefits, including reduced rates of large-for-gestational-age births and preeclampsia.

    “The expected bene fi ts of using IADPSG criteria to the offspring are inferred from intervention trials that focused on individuals with lower levels of hyperglycemia than those identi fi ed using older GDM diagnostic criteria. Those trials found modest bene fi ts, including reduced rates of largefor-gestational-age births and preeclampsia (211,212).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [211]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 80-90% of participants being treated for mild GDM in two randomized controlled trials could be managed with lifestyle therapy alone.

    “It is important to note that 80 -90% of participants being treated for mild GDM in these two randomized controlled trials could be managed with lifestyle therapy alone.”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [211]

    The Results (Maternal Outcomes) report that 37 of 485 women in this trial’s treatment group required insulin, so about 92% did not. That supports the point that most were managed without insulin, but the figure is slightly above the stated 80–90% range. The paper’s Discussion mentions the ACHOIS trial but does not give a corresponding lifestyle-only percentage for it. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 80-90% of participants being treated for mild GDM in these two randomized controlled trials could be managed with lifestyle therapy alone.

    “Of note, 80-90% of participants being treated for mild GDM in these two randomized controlled trials could be managed with lifestyle therapy alone.”

    From 2. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [194]

    The Results (Maternal Outcomes) report that 37 of 485 women in the treatment group required insulin, implying that about 92% were managed without it. That supports the lifestyle-only point for this trial, though the figure is slightly above 80–90%; the Discussion mentions the second trial but does not give its insulin-use rate. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Identification and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus defined by elevated glucose concentrations following a glucose load is supported by high quality evidence.

    “women should be counselled that identification and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus defined by elevated glucose concentrations following a glucose load is supported by high quality evidence, 15 , 16”

    From Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society ( <scp>ADIPS</scp> ) 2025 consensus recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and classification of gestational diabetes (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Methods identify mild gestational diabetes using an oral glucose-tolerance test, and the Results report improvements in several outcomes with treatment. But the trial did not test whether identifying or screening for the condition improves outcomes, and its primary composite outcome did not differ significantly between groups. It therefore supports treatment for this defined group, not the full, unqualified claim about identification and treatment. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Birth-weight cutoff differs between methods and results

    Minor

    The prespecified outcome excludes infants weighing exactly 4000 g, but the results describe an outcome that includes them. The text does not establish which cutoff was used for the reported comparison.

  • Birth-weight threshold changes at exactly 4000 g

    Minor

    The prespecified outcome excludes infants weighing exactly 4000 g, but the results describe the outcome as including them. The two definitions classify infants at that weight differently.

2 of 2

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: W4300627291

    Info

    The cited work was retracted; the date of the notice is not on record.

    Cited work W4300627291 · retraction date not known · this paper published 2009-10

1 of 1

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. O'Sullivan JB, 1964, Diabetes, 13, 278
  2. Metzger BE, 1998, Diabetes Care, 21, B161
  3. Cowett RM. Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in the newborn. In: Polin RA, Fox WW, eds. Fetal and neonatal physiology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1992:406.
  4. McFarland LV, 1986, Obstet Gynecol, 68, 784
  5. Cousins L. Obstetric complications in diabetic pregnancies. In: Reece EA, Coustan DR, Gabbe SG, eds. Diabetes in women: adolescence, pregnancy, and menopause. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004:351-70.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., Thom, E., Carpenter, M. W., Ramin, S. M., Casey, B., Wapner, R. J., Varner, M. W., Rouse, D. J., Thorp, J. M., Sciscione, A., Catalano, P., Harper, M., Saade, G., Lain, K. Y., Sorokin, Y., Peaceman, A. M., Tolosa, J. E., & Anderson, G. B.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2009-10
Volume
361
Issue
14
Pages
1339-1348
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmoa0902430
PMC
PMC2804874
OpenAlex
W2000357287
Cited by
2,122
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 97 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 118 · 2021: 145 · 2020: 150 · 2019: 131 · 2018: 153 · 2017: 122 · 2016: 123 · 2015: 127 · 2014: 133 · 2013: 119 · 2012: 121
FWCI
145.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2r24hd050924-06)
  • National Center for Research Resources (C06RR011234, M01RR000080, UL1RR024989, UL1RR025755, UL1RR025764, M01RR000034)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD40512, HD53118, U01HD036801, R24 HD-050924, HD27917, U10HD040544, U10HD034208, HD-27915, U10HD040512, HD34116, UG1HD034116, HD40545, HD34136, (HD40500, UG1HD053097, U10HD027915, U10HD040545, U10HD040560, HD 40544, HD-27860, HD40560, HD53097, U10HD027917, U10HD036801, U10HD027860, U10HD021410, HD 34208, HD 36801, U10HD053097, U10HD034116, HD27869, [HD21410, U10HD040500, U10HD040485, U10HD053118, U10HD027869, U10HD034136, UG1HD034208, U24HD036801, UG1HD040500, UG1HD040512, UG1HD027869, UG1HD040544, UG1HD040485, UG1HD027915, UG1HD040560, UG1HD040545, HD 40485)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, dietary intervention, self-monitoring of blood glucose, insulin therapy, perinatal outcomes, stillbirth, neonatal complications, birth weight, large for gestational age, shoulder dystocia, cesarean section, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, fetal overgrowth
MeSH terms
Adult, Birth Weight, Cesarean Section, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Newborn, Diseases, Insulin, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Body Mass Index, Diabetes, Gestational, Premature Birth, Stillbirth, Perinatal Mortality

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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