Cited by 227Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Lifestyle intervention can reduce the risk of gestational diabetes: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Song, C., Li, J., Leng, J., Ma, R. C., Yang, X.·2016·Obesity Reviews

Abstract

Summary: This study aimed to examine the effect of lifestyle intervention on the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We searched PubMed, Springer and other databases to retrieve articles published in English and Chinese up to 30 September 2015. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of lifestyle intervention on risk of GDM. Exclusion criteria were studies with prepregnancy diabetes mellitus or interventions with nutrient supplements. Random‐effect and fixed‐effect model analyses were used to obtain pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of diet and physical activity on the risk of GDM. Subgroup analyses were performed to check the consistency of effect sizes across groups where appropriate. We identified 29 randomized controlled trials with 11,487 pregnant women, addressing the effect of lifestyle intervention on the risk of GDM. In the pooled analysis, either diet or physical activity resulted in an 18% (95%CI 5–30%) reduction in the risk of GDM (P = 0.0091). Subgroup analysis showed that such intervention was effective among women with intervention before the 15th gestational week (relative risk: 0.80, 95%CI 0.66–0.97), but not among women receiving the intervention afterwards. We conclude that lifestyle modification during pregnancy, especially before the 15th gestational week, can reduce the risk of GDM. © 2016 World Obesity

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.12442

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, C., Li, J., Leng, J., Ma, R. C., & Yang, X.
Affiliations
  • Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area (CN)
  • Tianjin Medical University (CN)
  • Tianjin Women's and Children's Health Center (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Yang, X.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-07-15
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
960-969
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W2483234986
Cited by
227
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Universidad de Granada
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, lifestyle intervention, dietary intervention, physical activity, pregnancy, diabetes prevention, intervention timing, pregnant women
MeSH terms
Diet, Female, Health Education, Humans, Obesity, Patient Compliance, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Primary Prevention, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Diabetes, Gestational, Risk Reduction Behavior

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