Resumen de Investigación
Analyzed using Evidence Intelligence™

Electronic reminders improve screening participation in women with gestational diabetes

Última actualización 9 de septiembre de 2026

Key finding

Relative risk (95% CI) 1.20 (1.03–1.39) with a risk difference of 0.05 (0.01–0.10)

This study evaluated the effectiveness of electronic reminders for screening in women with gestational diabetes. Results indicated a modest increase in screening participation.

Quick read

Study at a glance

The essential study design details in one scan.

EvidenceScore™

Moderate

Study type

RCTs

Follow-up

Long-Term (1–5 y)

Risk of bias

Some Concerns

Guarda investigacion, organiza estudios y vuelve a encontrar evidencia importante rapidamente.

Plain-language summary

What this paper says

A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.

Study focus

This study evaluated the effectiveness of electronic reminders for screening in women with gestational diabetes. Results indicated a modest increase in screening participation.

Clinical relevance

Improving screening rates for gestational diabetes is crucial for early detection and management of potential diabetes in women. Electronic reminders could serve as a low-cost intervention to enhance participation, ultimately leading to better health outcomes for mothers and their children.

Keep in mind

Unclear effectiveness of the intervention on screening outcomes. Limited generalizability due to specific population characteristics. Potential unmeasured confounders affecting participation rates.

Published in

Referencia de la Revista

Publication details and source links for this paper.

Jane HN, Kirsten F, Jette KK, Charlotte O. Effectiveness of Electronic Reminders for Screening in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Public Health. 2023;23:153. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15060-9

Efectos Principales

32.1% of women participated in screening, with 35.1% in the intervention group.

3.8% of those screened were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

Evidence network

How this study fits

Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.

Evidence Context

This study contributes evidence to Electronic reminder for screening and Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening.

Primary intervention

Electronic reminder for screening

Primary outcomes

  • Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes
  • Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening

Evidence relationships

Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.

2
Evidence pairs
2
Relationships
0
Evidence topics
contributes_evidence

Editorial context

Why this study matters

See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.

Evidence network role

This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.

Limited contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 42

0

Related topics

2

Evidence pairs

0

Related studies

Why it is useful

  • Contributes to 2 evidence relationships
  • Includes primary outcome data
  • Linked to 0 direct semantic evidence topics

Core evidence

Study findings

The primary outcomes reported in this study.

Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes

Electronic reminder for screening → Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes

Electronic reminder for screening → Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
50
Neutral
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 1 estudio
Add to Evidence Tracker

Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening

Electronic reminder for screening → Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening

Electronic reminder for screening → Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening

Evidence Intelligence™
EvidenceScore™
Emerging
Score 59 · Based on 1 study
ImpactScore™
100
Very Positive
ConsistencyScore™
unclear
Not enough independent studies
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 1 estudio
Add to Evidence Tracker

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

evidence suggest

La Evidencia Sugiere

  • 35.1% of women in the intervention group participated in screening.
  • Only 3.8% of participants were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
who this applies

A quién se aplica

  • Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes.
  • Participants eligible for diabetes screening.
keep in mind

Tener en Cuenta

  • The effectiveness of electronic reminders remains unclear.
  • Results may not apply to all populations outside the study group.
  • Further research is needed to confirm findings and explore long-term impacts.
between the lines

Entre Líneas

  • Unclear effectiveness of the intervention on screening outcomes.
  • Limited generalizability due to specific population characteristics.
  • Potential unmeasured confounders affecting participation rates.

Evidence Library

Build your evidence library

Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.

Connected Evidence

Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.

Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.

This study contributes to evidence on Electronic reminder for screening and Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, Electronic reminder for screening and Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening.

Relaciones de evidencia relacionadas

Explore in Evidence Explorer

This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.

Explora más en Evidence Explorer

Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.

Questions answered by this study

Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.

Does Electronic reminder for screening lower participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening?

Emerging Evidence

Electronic reminder for screening appears to lower participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Participation rate in glycated hemoglobin screening

    EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.

Limitations

  • Only one supporting study is available.
1 supporting study

Does Electronic reminder for screening improve diagnosis of type 2 diabetes?

Emerging Evidence

Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Electronic reminder for screening for diagnosis of type 2 diabetes.

ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.

Ranked evidence signals

  1. 1

    Diagnosis of type 2 diabetes

    EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study

Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.

Limitations

  • Only one supporting study is available.
1 supporting study
Learn how Evidence Intelligence™ works

Next steps

Continue your research

Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.

Sin anuncios. Sin rastreo.

Centrada en la evidencia, no en la publicidad.

Segura y privada

Tus datos siempre están protegidos.

Siempre al día

Se agregan nuevos estudios todos los días.