Screening and Treatment for Early-Onset Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
Purpose of review We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the current evidence for screening and treatment for early-onset gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) RECENT FINDINGS: Many of the women with early GDM in the first trimester do not have evidence of hyperglycemia at 24-28 weeks' gestation. A high proportion (15-70%) of women with GDM can be detected early in pregnancy depending on the setting, criteria used and screening strategy. However, there remains no good evidence for any of the diagnostic criteria for early-onset GDM. In a meta-analysis of 13 cohort studies, perinatal mortality (relative risk (RR) 3.58 [1.91, 6.71]), neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 1.61 [1.02, 2.55]), and insulin use (RR 1.71 [1.45, 2.03]) were greater among early-onset GDM women compared to late-onset GDM women, despite treatment. Considering the high likelihood of benefit from treatment, there is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials that investigate any benefits and possible harms of treatment of early-onset GDM.
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?
Early abnormal glucose metabolism, defined as a fasting glucose threshold of 110 mg/dL or an A1C of 5.9%, may identify individuals at higher risk of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, more likely to need insulin treatment, and at high risk of a later GDM diagnosis.
“Early abnormal glucose metabolism, defi ned as a fasting glucose threshold of 110 mg/dL (6.1 mmol/L) or an A1C of 5.9% (41 mmol/mol), may identify individuals who are at higher risk of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes (preeclampsia, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, and perinatal death), are more likely to need insulin treatment, and are at high risk of a later GDM diagnosis (189 -194).”
From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [192]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 264
- Authors
- Immanuel, J., & Simmons, D.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Simmons, David
- Venue
- Current Diabetes Reports
- Published
- 2017-10-02
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 115-115
- ISSN
- 1534-4827 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-0829
- OpenAlex
- W2762517625
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Current Diabetes Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
- Keywords
- GDM screening, GDM diagnostic criteria, GDM treatment, perinatal mortality, neonatal hypoglycemia, insulin therapy, hyperglycemia in pregnancy
- MeSH terms
- Blood Glucose, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Diabetes, Gestational, Treatment Outcome
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
