The Role of Energy, Nutrients, Foods, and Dietary Patterns in the Development of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
Schoenaker DA, Mishra GD, Callaway LK, Soedamah-Muthu SS
Diabetes care · 164 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaMezcla carne procesada con no procesadaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Revisión sistemática (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2015-12-14 · Diabetes Care · vol. 39 · número 1 · págs. 16–23
- Editorial
- American Diabetes Association
- Citado
- 208 citas · más que el 94% de estudios similares · 3.0× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 76 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (copia en repositorio)
- Áreas de investigación
- Gestational Diabetes Research and Management · Birth, Development, and Health · Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, Gestational diabetes, Observational study, Confounding, Cohort study, Refined grains, Prospective cohort study, Diabetes mellitus, Environmental health, Pregnancy, Systematic review, MEDLINE, Gestation, Food science, Internal medicine, Whole grains, Endocrinology, Biology
- MeSH
- humans, fruit, vegetables, diabetes, gestational, dietary fats, cholesterol, dietary, diet, risk factors, prospective studies, cross-sectional studies, feeding behavior, energy intake, pregnancy, meat, female
4 autores
- Danielle A. J. M. Schoenaker🇦🇺 · autor de correspondenciaThe University of Queensland
- Gita Devi Mishra🇦🇺The University of Queensland
- Leonie Kaye Callaway🇦🇺The University of Queensland; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital
- Sabita S. Soedamah‐Muthu🇳🇱Wageningen University & Research
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Objective
Diet may influence the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), but inconsistent findings have been reported. The purpose of this study was to synthesize evidence from observational studies on the associations between dietary factors and GDM.
Research design and methods
Medline and Embase were searched for articles published until January 2015. We included observational studies of reproductive-aged women that reported on associations of maternal dietary intake before or during pregnancy, including energy, nutrients, foods, and dietary patterns, with GDM. All relevant results were extracted from each article. The number of comparable studies that adjusted for confounders was insufficient to perform a meta-analysis.
Results
The systematic review included 34 articles comprising 21 individual studies (10 prospective cohort, 6 cross-sectional, and 5 case-control). A limited number of prospective cohort studies adjusting for confounders indicated associations with a higher risk of GDM for replacing 1-5% of energy from carbohydrates with fat and for high consumption of cholesterol (≥300 mg/day), heme iron (≥1.1 mg/day), red and processed meat (increment of 1 serving/day), and eggs (≥7 per week). A dietary pattern rich in fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and fish and low in red and processed meat, refined grains, and high-fat dairy was found to be beneficial. The current evidence is based on a limited number of studies that are heterogeneous in design, exposure, and outcome measures.
Conclusions
The findings support current dietary guidelines to limit consumption of foods containing saturated fat and cholesterol, such as processed meat and eggs, as part of an overall balanced diet. Further large prospective studies are warranted.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.