A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Influence of medical nutrition therapy on borderline glucose intolerance in pregnant Taiwanese women. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to assess how medical nutrition therapy (MNT) affects borderline glucose intolerance (BGI) in pregnant Taiwanese women.
  • It involved 5,194 participants categorized based on their glucose tolerance test results, with a focus on BGI's impact on pregnancy outcomes.
  • Results showed that women with BGI who did not receive MNT faced higher risks of complications compared to those with normal glucose tolerance, while those who received MNT had similar outcomes to women without glucose intolerance.

Article Abstract

Objective: To investigate the influence of medical nutrition therapy (MNT) on borderline glucose intolerance (BGI) in pregnant Taiwanese women.

Methods: A total of 5194 singleton pregnant women were enrolled in this prospective, non-randomized study. The participants were subjected to the 50 g 1-h glucose challenge test (GCT) and 100 g 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to screening gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). BGI was defined as a positive GCT and normal OGTT results. GDM was defined as a positive GCT and abnormal OGTT results. The women were categorized into the following groups: (1) GCT-negative, n = 3881; (2) BGI with MNT, n = 273; (3) BGI without MNT, n = 712; and (4) GDM, n = 328. Multiple logistic analyses were used to estimate the risks of pregnancy outcomes.

Results: The odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for total cesareans, third- or fourth-degree perineal lacerations, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia and macrosomia were 1.24 (1.04-1.49), 1.55 (1.06-1.28), 1.78 (1.21-2.61) and 2.50 (1.28-4.91) in the BGI without MNT group compared to the GCT-negative group. There was no difference between BGI with MNT and GCT-negative groups.

Conclusions: Women with BGI who did not receive MNT had increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes, whereas who received MNT had no different risk with GCT-negative women.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1039508DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bgi mnt
16
influence medical
8
medical nutrition
8
nutrition therapy
8
borderline glucose
8
glucose intolerance
8
pregnant taiwanese
8
defined positive
8
positive gct
8
mnt
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!