Specifically, the use of convenience sampling introduces substantial selection bias, while the exclusion criteria fail to account for key confounding factors such as pre-pregnancy BMI and diet, which undermines the reliability of the findings. The statistical analysis raises significant concerns, with implausible odds ratios (e.g., 12.8 for a family history of diabetes) and overly narrow confidence intervals, suggesting potential calculation errors or misreporting. Additionally, the interpretation of the association between blood groups and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) lacks biological plausibility and contradicts findings from cited studies, which themselves present conflicting results. Furthermore, prevalence comparisons are based on inconsistent diagnostic criteria, which compromises the generalizability of the conclusions. The reported 6.9-fold increased risk of GDM among rural residents, along with data inconsistencies, suggests potential selective reporting or inaccuracies. Addressing these issues is critical to ensure the study’s validity and credibility.
