New diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus and their impact on the number of diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes
Open accessAbstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Detection and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are crucial to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications for both mother and child. In 2013, the WHO adopted new diagnostic criteria for GDM to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, the evidence supporting these criteria is limited. Consequently, these new criteria have not yet been endorsed in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of these criteria on the number of GDM diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Data were available from 10,642 women who underwent a 75 g OGTT because of risk factors or signs suggestive of GDM. Women were treated if diagnosed with GDM according to the WHO 1999 criteria. Data on pregnancy outcomes were obtained from extensive chart reviews from 4,431 women and were compared between women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and women classified into the following groups: (1) GDM according to WHO 1999 criteria; (2) GDM according to WHO 2013 criteria; (3) GDM according to WHO 2013 fasting glucose threshold, but not WHO 1999 criteria; and (4) GDM according to WHO 1999 2 h plasma glucose threshold (2HG), but not WHO 2013 criteria. RESULTS: Applying the new WHO 2013 criteria would have increased the number of diagnoses by 45% (32% vs 22%) in this population of women at higher risk for GDM. In comparison with women with NGT, women classified as having GDM based only on the WHO 2013 threshold for fasting glucose, who were not treated for GDM, were more likely to have been obese (46.1% vs 28.1%, p < 0.001) and hypertensive (3.3% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001) before pregnancy, and to have had higher rates of gestational hypertension (7.8% vs 4.9%, p = 0.003), planned Caesarean section (10.3% vs 6.5%, p = 0.001) and induction of labour (34.8% vs 28.0%, p = 0.001). In addition, their neonates were more likely to have had an Apgar score <7 at 5 min (4.4% vs 2.6%, p = 0.015) and to have been admitted to the Neonatology Department (15.0% vs 11.1%, p = 0.004). The number of large for gestational age (LGA) neonates was not significantly different between the two groups. Women potentially missed owing to the higher 2HG threshold set by WHO 2013 had similar pregnancy outcomes to women with NGT. These women were all treated for GDM with diet and 20.5% received additional insulin. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Applying the WHO 2013 criteria will have a major impact on the number of GDM diagnoses. Using the fasting glucose threshold set by WHO 2013 identifies a group of women with an increased risk of adverse outcomes compared with women with NGT. We therefore support the use of a lower fasting glucose threshold in the Dutch national guideline for GDM diagnosis. However, adopting the WHO 2013 criteria with a higher 2HG threshold would exclude women in whom treatment for GDM seems to be effective.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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 the Netherlands, Konnig et al. found a 45% increase in diagnosed GDM cases when comparing AIDPSG/WHO 2013 (32%) with WHO 1999 (22%) in high-risk women.
“There was a 45% increase in the number of diagnosed cases (32% in the AIDPSG/WHO 2013 group, and 22% in the WHO 1999 group) [146].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [146]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes
(2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0707943 · Cited by 5,563 · see citing works
Effect of Treatment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Pregnancy Outcomes
Crowther, C. A., Hiller, J. E., Moss, J. R., McPhee, A. J., Jeffries, W. S., & Robinson, J. S. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa042973 · Cited by 3,159 · see citing works
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 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This is supported by the results of a study by Landon et al, 2009, suggesting that early treatment in women with mild GDM reduces the percentage of women giving birth to LGA neonates by 7% [4].”
BackgroundResultMetzger, 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- [1]Langer O Yogev Y Most O Xenakis EM Gestational diabetes: the consequences of not treating Obstet Gynecol 2005 192 989 997 15846171
- [2]Yang X Hsu-Hage B Zhang H Zhang C Zhang Y Zhang C Women with impaired glucose tolerance during pregnancy have significantly poor pregnancy outcomes Diabetes Care 2002 25 1619 1624 10.2337/diacare.25.9.1619 12196437 · DOI
- [7]World Health Organization (2013) Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycemia first detected in pregnancy. Available from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85975/1/WHO_NMH_MND_13.2_eng.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2017 24199271
- [8]Benhalima K Damm P Van Assche A Screening for gestational diabetes in Europe: where do we stand and how to move forward?: A scientific paper commissioned by the European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016 201 192 196 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.04.002 27105781 · DOI
- [9]Buckley B Harreiter J Damm P Gestational diabetes mellitus in Europe: prevalence, current screening practice and barriers to screening. A review Diabet Med 2012 29 844 854 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03541.x 22150506 · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Visser GHA de Valk HW Is the evidence strong enough to change the diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes now? Obstet Gynecol 2013 208 260 264 23103371
- [11]Cundy T Ackermann E Ryan EA Gestational diabetes: new criteria may triple the prevalence but effect on outcomes is unclear BMJ 2014 11 348 g1567 24618099
- [14]Koning SH Hoogenberg K Scheuneman KA Neonatal and obstetric outcomes in diet- and insulin-treated women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a retrospective study BMC Endocr Disord 2016 16 52 10.1186/s12902-016-0136-4 27680327 PMC5041294 · DOI
- [15]Koning SH Scheuneman KA Lutgers HL Risk stratification for healthcare planning in women with gestational diabetes mellitus Neth J Med 2016 74 262 269 27571724
- [16]Visser GH Eilers PH Elferink-Stinkens PM Merkus HM Wit JM New Dutch reference curves for birthweight by gestational age Early Hum Dev 2009 85 737 744 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2009.09.008 19914013 · DOI
- [17]Agarwal MM Gestational diabetes mellitus: an update on the current international diagnostic criteria World J Diabetes 2015 6 782 791 10.4239/wjd.v6.i6.782 26131321 PMC4478575 · DOI · Paper page
- [18]American Diabetes Association Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2014 37 S81 S90 10.2337/dc14-S081 24357215 · DOI · Paper page
- [19]Laafira A White SW Griffin CJ Graham D Impact of the new IADPSG gestational diabetes diagnostic criteria on pregnancy outcomes in Western Australia Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016 56 36 41 10.1111/ajo.12394 26293845 · DOI · Paper page
- [20]Lapolla A Dalfrà M Ragazzi E De Cata A Fedele D New International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations for diagnosing gestational diabetes compared with former criteria: a retrospective study on pregnancy outcome Diabet Med 2011 28 1074 1077 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03351.x 21658125 · DOI
- [21]Meek CL Lewis HB Patient C Murphy HR Simmons D Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: falling through the net Diabetologia 2015 58 2003 2012 10.1007/s00125-015-3647-z 26071759 PMC4526580 · DOI
- [22]O’Sullivan E Avalos G O’Reilly M Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy (DIP): the prevalence and outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus using new diagnostic criteria Diabetologia 2011 54 1670 1675 10.1007/s00125-011-2150-4 21494772 · DOI · Paper page
- [23]Farrar D Fairley L Santorelli G Association between hyperglycaemia and adverse perinatal outcomes in South Asian and white British women: analysis of data from the Born in Bradford cohort Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015 3 795 804 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00255-7 26355010 PMC4673084 · DOI
- [24]Harlass FE Brady K Read JA Reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy Obstet Gynecol 1991 164 564 568 1992702
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gestational Diabetes: Overview with Emphasis on Medical Management
Lende, M., & Rijhsinghani, A. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17249573 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Trends and predictors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Chile
Garmendia, M. L., Mondschein, S., Montiel, B., & Kusanovic, J. P. (2020) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.13023 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
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
- Koning, S. H., van Zanden, J. J., Hoogenberg, K., Lutgers, H. L., Klomp, A. W., Korteweg, F. J., van Loon, A. J., Wolffenbuttel, B. H. R., & van den Berg, P. P.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
- Martini Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Wolffenbuttel, Bruce H. R.
- Venue
- Diabetologia
- Published
- 2017-11-22
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 800-809
- ISSN
- 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0428
- PMC
- PMC6449063
- OpenAlex
- W2769535271
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10
- FWCI
- 8.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Diabetologia (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Novo Nordisk Netherlands
- 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, diagnostic criteria, 75 g oral glucose tolerance test, pregnancy outcomes, gestational hypertension, cesarean section, labor induction, Apgar score, maternal obesity, maternal hypertensive disorders
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Glucose, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Mothers, Netherlands, Obstetrics, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, World Health Organization, Body Mass Index, Diabetes, Gestational, Practice Guidelines as Topic
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