Changes in perinatal outcomes after implementation of IADPSG criteria for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: A national survey
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal outcomes before and after implementation of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for testing of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: test (P<0.05 was significant). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: Prevalence of GDM increased from 2.6% to 9.7% (adjusted odds ratio 3.92; 95% confidence interval 3.78-4.08). Incidence of large-for-gestational age (LGA), macrosomia (birth weight >4500 g), Erb's palsy, and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy decreased despite increasing maternal age and pre-pregnancy obesity. Rates of cesarean delivery increased in both GDM and non-GDM groups, with a less pronounced increase in GDM mothers. Incidence of small-for-gestational age (SGA) increased in GDM but not in non-GDM group. CONCLUSION: Implementation of IADPSG criteria in a country with a relatively low prevalence of GDM did not result in higher rates of cesarean delivery and was associated with reductions in LGA and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In Slovenia, Lucovnik et al. analyzed 276,210 deliveries and observed an increase in GDM prevalence from 2.6% to 9.7%.
“Lucovnik et al. analyzed the data before and after changing the GDM diagnostic criteria from 276 210 deliveries. An increase in the GDM prevalence from 2.6% to 9.7% of cases was observed [186].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [186]
In June 2011, Slovenia accepted IADPSG guidelines and started universal screening; before this, a two-step test using C&C criteria for pregnant women with risk factors was performed.
“In June 2011, Slovenia accepted the IADPSG guidelines and started universal screening for GDM. Before this date a two-step test that used C&C criteria for pregnant women with risk factors for GDM were performed [186].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [186]
Cites
A Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Treatment for Mild Gestational Diabetes
Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., Thom, E., Carpenter, M. W., Ramin, S. M., Casey, B., Wapner, R. J., Varner, M. W., Rouse, D. J., Thorp, J. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0902430 · Cited by 2,122 · see citing works
Metzger, B. E., Gabbe, S. G., Persson, B., Lowe, L. P., Dyer, A. R., Oats, J. J. N., & Buchanan, T. A. (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc10-0719 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
13. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: <i>Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018</i>
American Diabetes Association (2018) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc18-s013 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
Different strategies for diagnosing gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health
Farrar, D., Duley, L., Dowswell, T., & Lawlor, D. A. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007122.pub4 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Benhalima, K., Hanssens, M., Devlieger, R., Verhaeghe, J., & Mathieu, C. (2013) · International Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1155/2013/248121 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century
Dłuski, D. F., Ruszała, M., Rudziński, G., Pożarowska, K., Brzuszkiewicz, K., & Leszczyńska-Gorzelak, B. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192315804 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lucovnik, M., Steblovnik, L., Verdenik, I., Premru‐Srsen, T., Tomazic, M., & Tul, N.
- Affiliations
- Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department of Perinatology University Medical Centre Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia
- Ljubljana University Medical Centre (SI)
- Division of Internal Medicine Department for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders University Medical Centre Ljubljana Ljubljana Slovenia
- Venue
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-01-27
- Volume
- 149
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-92
- ISSN
- 0020-6695 (ISSN-L)
- 0020-7292
- 1879-3479
- OpenAlex
- W2999718134
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Keywords
- gestational diabetes mellitus, IADPSG criteria, perinatal outcomes, large for gestational age, macrosomia, Erb's palsy, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, small for gestational age, GDM prevalence
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Registries, Retrospective Studies, Logistic Models, Diabetes, Gestational, Slovenia
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
