Prevalence of gestational diabetes and risk

Running head: CRITIQUE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 1
Critique of Systematic Review
Name
Institutional Affiliation

CRITIQUE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 2
CRITIQUE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Article Reference (APA - 10 points)
Zhu, Y., & Zhang, C. (2016). Prevalence of gestational diabetes and risk of progression to type 2
diabetes: a global perspective. Current diabetes reports, 16(1), 7.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yeyi_Zhu/publication/289601746_Prevalence_of_G
estational_Diabetes_and_Risk_of_Progression_to_Type_2_Diabetes_a_Global_Perspecti
ve/links/5b463bb7aca272c60937725a/Prevalence-of-Gestational-Diabetes-and-Risk-of-
Progression-to-Type-2-Diabetes-a-Global-Perspective.pdf
Critique of Systematic Review (90 points/5 points each)
1. The Problem
1. Did the report state the research problem and/or research questions?
Yes. The problem is stated as lack of sufficient assessment of global burden of
gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) due to lacking of systematically synthesized data on
global GDM prevalence estimates specifically amongst developing economies (Zhu &
Zhang, 2016).
2. Is the scope of the project appropriate?
Yes. The scope of review covered overview of global GDM prevalence premised on
data published in previous decade, discussed methodological difficulties in global burden
estimation as well as discussed contributing factors linked to geographic variation in
prevalence of GDM and assessed adverse GDM health implications in regards to
progression to T2DM from a global viewpoint.
3. Was the approach to integration described, and was the approach appropriate?
Yes. The authors described the approach and it was appropriate.

CRITIQUE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW 3
Search Strategy
4. Did the report describe criteria for selecting primary studies, and are the criteria
defensible?
Yes. The criteria for selecting primary studies are described and remain defensible. In
phase 1, they reviewed abstract and titles to determine relevance of articles to the
research objective. In phase 2, they reviewed full texts of 214 articles to extract data on
sample size, study design, year, location, sampling strategy, diagnostic criteria, screening
approach, GDM prevalence and characteristics of subject. Only selected the most lately
published study in case of duplicate studies on same study population. Quality of every
eligible study was assessed using a scoring system developed by International Diabetes
Federation with 4 domains. In phase 3, suitable exclusion criteria was applied for further
synthesis which led to a final selection of 77 studies with the mean quality score of 4.60
(SD 0.80).
5. Were the bibliographic databases used by the reviewers identified, and are they
appropriate and comprehensive? Were key words identified?
Yes. The bibliographic database were identified and remain appropriate and
comprehensive with key words identified. The identified database included PubMed
supplemented by cross-checking appropriate references of eligible studies on GDP
prevalence in past decade beginning Jan 1, 2005 to August 1, 2005. Key terms identified
as gestational diabetes, prevalence, screening, diagnosis, type 2 diabetes and pregnancy.
6. Did the reviewers use supplementary efforts to identify relevant studies?
Yes. They use cross supplemented a literature search by cross-checking relevant
references of eligible studies on GDM prevalence in the previous decade beginning Jan