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
  • [41] Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a population of pregnant women attending three health facilities in Limbe, Cameroon: a cross-sectional study
    Egbe, Thomas Obinchemti
    Tsaku, Elvis Songa
    Tchounzou, Robert
    Ngowe, Marcelin Ngowe
    [J]. PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2018, 31
  • [42] Prevalence and predictors of gestational diabetes mellitus among pregnant women attending antenatal clinic in Dodoma region, Tanzania: an analytical cross-sectional study
    Mdoe, Mwajuma Bakari
    Kibusi, Stephen Matthew
    Munyogwa, Mariam John
    Ernest, Alex Ibolinga
    [J]. BMJ NUTRITION, PREVENTION & HEALTH, 2021, 4 (01) : 69 - 79
  • [43] Effectiveness of Metformin in the Prevention of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Obese Pregnant Women
    Sales, Willian Barbosa
    do Nascimento, Iramar Baptistella
    Dienstmann, Guilherme
    Ramos de Souza, Matheus Leite
    da Silva, Grazielle Dutra
    Silva, Jean Carl
    [J]. REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE GINECOLOGIA E OBSTETRICIA, 2018, 40 (04): : 180 - 187
  • [44] Risk factors and diagnostic performance of predictors as a screening technique for gestational diabetes mellitus: a retrospective cross-sectional study
    Khobrani, Fatimah Mudaia
    Alzahrani, Abdullah Mohammad
    Binmahfoodh, Dina Saleh
    Hemedy, Rawan Abdullah
    Abbas, Salwa Ibrahim
    [J]. ANNALS OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, 2024, 86 (08): : 4384 - 4388
  • [45] Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening in morbidly obese pregnant women
    Gandhi, Preeti
    Farrell, Tom
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2011, 159 (02) : 329 - 332
  • [46] Effectiveness of salivary glucose as a reliable alternative in diagnosis of type 1 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional study
    Ganesan, Anuradha
    Muthukrishnan, Arvind
    Veeraraghavan, Vishnu Priya
    Kumar, N. Gautham
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND BIOALLIED SCIENCES, 2022, 14 : 557 - 562
  • [47] Cognitive Status in Elderly Women and Diabetes Mellitus: A Cross-Sectional Study
    Martinez, Beatriz
    Schuwart, Aline
    Silva, Adriana
    Oliveira, Bruno
    Mazini, Camila
    Pereira, Ana Carolina
    [J]. JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2015, 24 (04) : 28 - 29
  • [48] Predictive factors of perinatal depression among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in the UAE: a cross-sectional clinical study
    Khadija I. Alzarooni
    Salah Abusnana
    Hala Zakaria
    Amal Hussein
    Bashair M. Mussa
    Ghada Mohammed
    [J]. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 24
  • [49] Predictive factors of perinatal depression among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in the UAE: a cross-sectional clinical study
    Alzarooni, Khadija I.
    Abusnana, Salah
    Zakaria, Hala
    Hussein, Amal
    Mussa, Bashair M.
    Mohammed, Ghada
    [J]. BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [50] Diagnosis and management practices for gestational diabetes mellitus in Australia: Cross-sectional survey of the multidisciplinary team
    Meloncelli, Nina
    Barnett, Adrian
    Pelly, Fiona
    de Jersey, Susan
    [J]. AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2019, 59 (02): : 208 - 214