CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 153Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 119 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Different strategies for diagnosing gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health

Open access
Farrar, Diane, Duley, Lelia, Dowswell, Therese, Lawlor, Debbie A·2017·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007122.pub4PMC PMC6483546
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. If untreated, perinatal morbidity and mortality may be increased. Accurate diagnosis allows appropriate treatment. Use of different tests and different criteria will influence which women are diagnosed with GDM. This is an update of a review published in 2011 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare different testing strategies for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus to improve maternal and infant health while assessing their impact on healthcare service costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials if they evaluated tests carried out to diagnose GDM. We excluded studies that used a quasi-random model, cluster-randomised or cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of seven small trials, with 1420 women. One trial including 726 women was identified by this update and examined the two step versus one step approach. These trials were assessed as having varying risk of bias, with few outcomes reported. We prespecified six outcomes to be assessed for quality using the GRADE approach for one comparison: 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) versus 100 g OGTT; data for only one outcome (diagnosis of gestational diabetes) were available for assessment. One trial compared three different methods of delivering glucose: a candy bar (39 women), a 50 g glucose polymer drink (40 women) and a 50 g glucose monomer drink (43 women). We have included the results reported by this trial as separate comparisons. No trial reported on measures of costs of health services.We examined six main comparisons. 75 g OGTT versus 100 g OGTT (1 trial, 248 women): women who received 75 g OGTT had a higher relative risk of being diagnosed with GDM (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 6.75; very-low quality evidence). No data were reported for the following additional outcomes prespecified for GRADE assessment: caesarean section, macrosomia > 4.5 kg or however defined in the trial, long-term type 2 diabetes maternal, long-term type 2 diabetes infant and economic costs. Candy bar versus 50 g glucose monomer drink (1 trial, 60 women): more women receiving the candy bar, rather than glucose monomer, preferred the taste of the candy bar (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 1-hour glucose was less with the candy bar. There were no differences in the other outcomes reported (maternal side effects). No infant outcomes were reported or any review primary outcomes. 50 g glucose polymer drink versus 50 g glucose monomer drink (3 trials, 239 women): mean difference (MD) in gestation at birth was -0.80 weeks (1 trial, 100 women; 95% CI -1.69 to 0.09). Total side effects were less common with the glucose polymer drink (1 trial, 63 women; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59), and no clear difference in taste acceptability was reported (1 trial, 63 women; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). Fewer women reported nausea following the 50 g glucose polymer drink compared with the 50 g glucose monomer drink (1 trial, 66 women; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78). No other measures of maternal morbidity or outcomes for the infant were reported. 50 g glucose food versus 50 g glucose drink (1 trial, 30 women): women receiving glucose in their food, rather than as a drink, reported fewer side effects (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.56). No clear difference was noted in the number of women requiring further testing (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55). No other measures of maternal morbidity or outcome were reported for the infant or review primary outcomes. 75 g OGTT World Health Organization (WHO) criteria versus 75 g OGTT American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria (1 trial, 116 women): no clear differences in included outcomes were observed between women who received the 75 g OGTT and were diagnosed using criteria based on WHO (1999) recommendations and women who received the 75 g OGTT and were diagnosed using criteria recommended by the ADA (1979). Outcomes measured included diagnosis of gestational diabetes (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.25), caesarean section (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35), macrosomia defined as > 90th percentile by ultrasound or birthweight equal to or exceeding 4000 g (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.79), stillbirth (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.68) and instrumental birth (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.94). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Two-step approach (50 g oral glucose challenge test followed by selective 100 g OGTT Carpente

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007122.pub4

Cites

119 of 120 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Martínez Collado, 2003, Glucose screening test in pregnant women. A comparison between the traditional glucose load and diet, Medicina Interna de México, 19, 286
  2. Bebbington, 1999, A randomized controlled trial comparing routine screening vs selected screening for gestational diabetes in low risk population, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 180, S36
  3. Tierney, 2015, The rate of uptake and clinical effectiveness of gestational diabetes mellitus screening in primary vs. secondary care, Diabetes, 64, A676
  4. Deerochanawong, 1995, Comparison of the diagnosis of GDM between NDDG and WHO criteria, Diabetologia, 38, A36
  5. Sammarco MJ Mundy DC Riojas JE Glucose tolerance in pregnancy Proceedings of 41st Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1993 May 3-6; Washington DC, USA 1993 10 1
  6. Lamar, 1999, Jelly beans as an alternative to the glucola for gestational diabetes screening, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 180, S36
  7. Ahern, 2014, Comparing the glucose challenge test and the oral glucose tolerance test in screening for gestational diabetes: A randomised clinical trial, Irish Journal of Medical Science, 183, S457
  8. Meltzer, 2010, Gestational diabetes mellitus screening and diagnosis: a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing costs of one-step and two-step methods, BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 117, 407, 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02475.x · DOI
  9. Metzger, 2010, International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy, Diabetes Care, 33, 676, 10.2337/dc09-1848 · DOI · Paper page
  10. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager (RevMan) 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 153

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Farrar, D., Duley, L., Dowswell, T., & Lawlor, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Bradford Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • Queen's Medical Centre (GB)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-08-23
Volume
2017
Issue
8
Pages
CD007122-CD007122
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd007122.pub4
PMC
PMC6483546
OpenAlex
W2146708180
Cited by
153
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 8
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10196, 13/89/05)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, GDM diagnosis, oral glucose tolerance test, 75 g OGTT, maternal outcomes, perinatal outcomes, health care costs, diagnostic accuracy, risk of bias, cesarean section
MeSH terms
Beverages, Candy, Female, Glucose, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Infant Welfare, Infant, Newborn, Maternal Welfare, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Diabetes, Gestational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review