One-step vs 2-step gestational diabetes mellitus screening and pregnancy outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes of patients screened with the 1-step or 2-step screening method for gestational diabetes mellitus. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and LILACS were searched from inception up to September 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only randomized controlled trials were included. Studies that had overlapping populations were excluded (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42022358903). METHODS: Risk ratios were computed with 95% confidence intervals by 2 authors. Unpublished data were requested. Large for gestational age was the primary outcome. RESULTS: The search yielded 394 citations. Moreover, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 54,650 participants were screened for gestational diabetes mellitus by either the 1-step screening method (n=27,163) or the 2-step screening method (n=27,487). For large for gestational age, there was no significant difference found between the groups (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.05; I2=0%). Newborns of patients who underwent 1-step screening had higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.34; I2=0%) and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.21; I2=0%) than newborns of patients who underwent 2-step screening. Patients in the 1-step screening method group were more likely to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-2.09; I2=80%) than patients in the 2-step screening method group. In addition, among trials that tested all patients before randomization and excluded patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus, newborns were more likely to have macrosomia (risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.34; I2=0%). Overall risk of bias assessment was of low concern. CONCLUSION: Large for gestational age did not differ between patients screened using the 1-step screening method and those screened using the 2-step screening method. However, patients randomized to the 1-step screening method had higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia and neonatal intensive care unit admission and maternal gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis than the patients randomized to the 2-step screening method.

Influence of surgeon behavior on trainee willingness to speak up: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine if a surgeon's behaviors can encourage or discourage trainees from speaking up when they witness a surgical mistake. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized clinical trial in which medical students (n = 55) were randomly assigned to an "encouraged" (n = 28) or "discouraged" (n = 27) group. Participants underwent personality tests to assess decision-making styles, and were then trained on basic tasks ("burn" then "cut") on a laparoscopic surgery simulator. After randomization, students assisted at a simulated laparoscopic salpingectomy. The senior surgeon used either an "encourage" script (eg, "Your opinion is important.") or a "discourage" script (eg, "Do what I say. Save questions for next time."). Otherwise, the surgery was conducted identically. Subsequently, a surgical mistake was made by the senior surgeon when he instructed students to cut without burning. Students were considered to have spoken up if they questioned the instruction and did not cut. Potential personality bias was assessed with two validated personality tests before simulation. Data were processed with Mann-Whitney and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The students in the encouraged group were significantly more likely to speak up (23 of 28 [82%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in personality traits, student training level (p = 1.0), or sex (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: A discouraging environment decreases the frequency with which trainees speak up when witnessing a surgical error. The senior surgeon plays an important role in improving intraoperative communication between junior and senior clinicians and can enhance patient safety.