Comparison of the effectiveness of screening methods for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women: A cross-sectional study

被引:1
|
作者
Sahin, Mustafa [1 ]
Gorkem, Umit [2 ]
Bilgi, Ahmet [3 ]
Dikker, Okan [4 ]
机构
[1] Hitit Univ, Erol Olcok Training & Res Hosp, Dept Med Biochem, Corum, Turkey
[2] Hitit Univ, Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Corum, Turkey
[3] Selcuk Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Fac Med, Konya, Turkey
[4] Okmeydani Training & Res Hosp, Dept Med Biochem, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
PREVALENCE; CRITERIA; TESTS;
D O I
10.1111/ijcp.14857
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective The methods and criteria used for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening in pregnant women are updated by the relevant organisations in certain periods. We aimed to compare the efficiency of GDM screening tests in pregnant women and to investigate the reasons of different prevalence values reported in the literature. Materials and Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, a total of 2406 pregnant women who were admitted to the obstetric outpatient clinic for screening GDM, were included. All pregnant women were randomly screened between 24 and 28 gestational weeks, using one-step (75 gr glucose loading) or two-step (50 gr and 100 gr glucose loading) methods. The demographic, clinical and biochemical parameters of the study population were analysed. Results In our study, 680 pregnant women were screened by one-step method and 1726 by two-step method. The average age of the one-step and two-step groups was 28.3 +/- 5.7 and 28.1 +/- 5.1, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found between the ages of the two groups (P = .647). Other baseline characteristics, including maternal age, maternal weight, height, body mass index, gestational week, multiparity, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse, fasting plasma glucose were not significantly different between the two groups (P > .05, for all). The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group than that in the two-step group: 158/680 (23.2%) versus 143/1683 (8.5%), respectively. A statistically significant difference was found between the prevalence of the two groups (P < .001). Conclusion The reason for the different prevalence values obtained in GDM screening studies may be because of the preferred method. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of both methods, studies are needed in which international organisations will revise their diagnostic criteria. We think it would be more appropriate to use the two-step screening method until international professional organisations develop a new methodology and new cut-off values.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Magnitude of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in an urban setting in Tanzania; a cross-sectional analytic study
    Akampa Mukuve
    Mariam Noorani
    Ibrahim Sendagire
    Miriam Mgonja
    [J]. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 20
  • [22] Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus and associated risk factors in pregnant Chinese women: a cross-sectional study in Huangdao, Qingdao, China
    Wu, Li
    Han, Lei
    Zhan, Ying
    Cui, Lianhua
    Chen, Wei'ai
    Ma, Li
    Lv, Jing
    Pan, Rongfang
    Zhao, Didi
    Xiao, Ziyi
    [J]. ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2018, 27 (02) : 383 - 388
  • [23] Gestational Diabetes and Analysis of Maternal and Fetal Outcomes Among Pregnant Women: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Biju, Praisy B.
    Chaudhary, Raushan Kumar
    Radhakrishnan, Krishnapriya
    Shetty, Shraddha
    Mateti, Uday Venkat
    Raju, Barma Naga
    Sonkusare, Shipra
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY OF INDIA, 2023,
  • [24] Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Patients with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Regarding Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Tan, Jie
    Chen, Lumeng
    Wu, Yingying
    Zhu, Xuhong
    Fei, Huali
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2023, 16 : 4365 - 4376
  • [25] Predictors of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Chinese Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Zhang, Ya-jie
    Jin, Hua
    Qin, Zhen-li
    Ma, Jin-long
    Zhao, Han
    Zhang, Ling
    Chen, Zi-jiang
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION, 2016, 81 (03) : 220 - 224
  • [26] A cross-sectional study of antenatal depressive symptoms in women at high risk for gestational diabetes mellitus
    Engberg, Elina
    Stach-Lempinen, Beata
    Sahrakorpi, Niina
    Rono, Kristiina
    Roine, Risto P.
    Kautiainen, Hannu
    Eriksson, Johan G.
    Koivusalo, Saila B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH, 2015, 79 (06) : 646 - 650
  • [27] Prevalence and Determinants of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study in China
    Xu, Xianglong
    Liu, Ying
    Liu, Dengyuan
    Li, Xiaoming
    Rao, Yunshuang
    Sharma, Manoj
    Zhao, Yong
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2017, 14 (12)
  • [28] Association of urinary polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolites with gestational diabetes mellitus and gestational hypertension among pregnant women in Southwest China: A cross-sectional study
    Liao, Dengqing
    Xiong, Shimin
    An, Songlin
    Tao, Lin
    Dai, Lulu
    Tian, Yingkuan
    Chen, Wei
    He, Caidie
    Xu, Pei
    Wu, Nian
    Liu, Xiang
    Zhang, Haonan
    Hu, Zhongmei
    Deng, Mingyu
    Liu, Yijun
    Li, Quan
    Shang, Xuejun
    Shen, Xubo
    Zhou, Yuanzhong
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 2024, 343
  • [29] Diabetes mellitus among pregnant women in Chiang Rai, Northern Thailand: A cross-sectional study
    Phothi, Porntummarot
    Chuaykarn, Tapanut
    Thakral, Manu
    [J]. NURSING RESEARCH, 2024, 73 (03) : E173 - E173
  • [30] Factors associated with poor-to-moderate quality of life among pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study in Malaysia
    Kai Wei Lee
    Siew Mooi Ching
    Fan Kee Hoo
    Vasudevan Ramachandran
    Seng Choi Chong
    Maiza Tusimin
    Faith En Ang
    Noraihan Mohd Nordin
    Navin Kumar Devaraj
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2020, 29 : 2725 - 2736