Externally validated risk prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Risk prediction models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) offer potential for early identification and targeted prevention. External validation is crucial to assess model performance across diverse populations. Despite the availability of numerous GDM prediction models, limited evidence exists on their external validation frequency, methodological quality, and clinical applicability. This systematic review evaluated externally validated GDM prediction models, focusing on methodological rigor, reporting standards, and clinical relevance to inform future research and implementation.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

Databases including Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Emcare, and CINAHL were searched up to May 1, 2025. Studies reporting external validation of GDM risk prediction models were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies. Data were extracted using the CHARMS framework, and risk of bias and applicability were assessed using PROBAST+AI. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251125758).

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies validated 33 models, with validation sample sizes ranging from 50 to 75 161. Over half used the IADPSG criteria to define GDM. Discrimination metrics were commonly reported, but calibration, overall performance, and clinical utility were often lacking. Meta-analysis was feasible for only four models: Teede et al., Nanda et al., Naylor et al., and Van Leeuwen et al., each showing fair discrimination. The Teede et al. model was the most widely validated, with 11 external validations across six continents and a pooled AUC of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.76). Despite fewer validations, the Nanda et al. model achieved the highest pooled discrimination (5 validations; pooled AUC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.74-0.80). The Naylor et al. and van Leeuwen et al. models also underwent meta-analysis, as sufficient external validation studies were available to support comparative performance assessment. Notably, 69.23% of studies had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

While many models showed acceptable predictive performance, most validations were methodologically weak. Future studies should follow best-practice guidelines and promote scalable validation strategies, such as algorithm sharing, to enhance clinical utility.