Cited by 398Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study: Paving the way for new diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus

Open access
Coustan, Donald R., Lowe, Lynn P., Metzger, Boyd E., Dyer, Alan R.·2010·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study was performed in response to the need for internationally agreed upon diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes, based upon their predictive value for adverse pregnancy outcome. Increases in each of the 3 values on the 75-g, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test are associated with graded increases in the likelihood of pregnancy outcomes such as large for gestational age, cesarean section, fetal insulin levels, and neonatal fat content. Based upon an iterative process of decision making, a task force of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommends that the diagnosis of gestational diabetes be made when any of the following 3 75-g, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test thresholds are met or exceeded: fasting 92 mg/dL, 1-hour 180 mg/dL, or 2 hours 153 mg/dL. Various authoritative bodies around the world are expected to deliberate the adoption of these criteria.

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 · 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.006

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coustan, D. R., Lowe, L. P., Metzger, B. E., & Dyer, A. R.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-06
Volume
202
Issue
6
Pages
654.e1-654.e6
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063955121
Cited by
398
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
24.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01-HD34242, R01-HD34243)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01-RR00048, M01-RR00080)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • American Diabetes Association
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, HAPO study, oral glucose tolerance test, hyperglycemia, adverse pregnancy outcomes, large for gestational age, cesarean section, fetal insulin
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Insulin, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Odds Ratio, 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