Cited by 94Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Trends and racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence of pregestational type 1 and type 2 diabetes in Northern California: 1996-2014

Open access
Peng, Tiffany Y., Ehrlich, Samantha F., Crites, Yvonne, Kitzmiller, John L., Kuzniewicz, Michael W., Hedderson, Monique M., Ferrara, Assiamira·2017·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background Despite concern for adverse perinatal outcomes in women with diabetes mellitus before pregnancy, recent data on the prevalence of pregestational type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States are lacking.Objective The purpose of this study was to estimate changes in the prevalence of overall pregestational diabetes mellitus (all types) and pregestational type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus and to estimate whether changes varied by race-ethnicity from 1996-2014.Study design We conducted a cohort study among 655,428 pregnancies at a Northern California integrated health delivery system from 1996-2014. Logistic regression analyses provided estimates of prevalence and trends.Results The age-adjusted prevalence (per 100 deliveries) of overall pregestational diabetes mellitus increased from 1996-1999 to 2012-2014 (from 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.63] to 1.06 [95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.12]; P trend <.0001). Significant increases occurred in all racial-ethnic groups; the largest relative increase was among Hispanic women (121.8% [95% confidence interval, 84.4-166.7]); the smallest relative increase was among non-Hispanic white women (49.6% [95% confidence interval, 27.5-75.4]). The age-adjusted prevalence of pregestational type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus increased from 0.14 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.16) to 0.23 (95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.27; P trend <.0001) and from 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.46) to 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.83; P trend <.0001), respectively. The greatest relative increase in the prevalence of type 1 diabetes mellitus was in non-Hispanic white women (118.4% [95% confidence interval, 70.0-180.5]), who had the lowest increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (13.6% [95% confidence interval, -8.0 to 40.1]). The greatest relative increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus was in Hispanic women (125.2% [95% confidence interval, 84.8-174.4]), followed by African American women (102.0% [95% confidence interval, 38.3-194.3]) and Asian women (93.3% [95% confidence interval, 48.9-150.9]).Conclusions The prevalence of overall pregestational diabetes mellitus and pregestational type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus increased from 1996-1999 to 2012-2014 and racial-ethnic disparities were observed, possibly because of differing prevalence of maternal obesity. Targeted prevention efforts, preconception care, and disease management strategies are needed to reduce the burden of diabetes mellitus and its sequelae.

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.2016.10.007

Cites

30 of 30 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

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?

  • The ongoing epidemic of obesity and diabetes has led to more type 2 diabetes in people of reproductive age, with an increase in pregnant individuals with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in early pregnancy.

    “The ongoing epidemic of obesity and diabetes has led to more type 2 diabetes in people of reproductive age, with an increase in the number of pregnant individuals with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in early pregnancy (179 -181).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: <i>Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024</i> (2024) · cites this paper as [180]

    The Comments section reports rising pregestational type 2 diabetes and suggests that increasing obesity among women of reproductive age likely contributed. But the Materials and Methods section says the study counted diabetes clinically recognized before pregnancy; it does not establish an increase in pregnant individuals with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in early pregnancy. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The ongoing epidemic of obesity and diabetes has led to more type 2 diabetes in people of reproductive age, with an increase in the number of pregnant individuals with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in early pregnancy.

    “The ongoing epidemic of obesity and diabetes has led to more type 2 diabetes in people of reproductive age, with an increase in the number of pregnant individuals with undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in early pregnancy (164-166).”

    From 2. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [165]

    The Comments report increasing pregestational type 2 diabetes and suggest that rising obesity among women of reproductive age likely contributed. But Materials and Methods says the study identified diabetes clinically recognized before pregnancy; it does not establish an increase in undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in early pregnancy. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peng, T. Y., Ehrlich, S. F., Crites, Y., Kitzmiller, J. L., Kuzniewicz, M. W., Hedderson, M. M., & Ferrara, A.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Ferrara, Assiamira
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
216
Issue
2
Pages
177.e1-177.e8
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2536874336
Cited by
94
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 3
FWCI
9.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K01DK105106, P30DK092924)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
pregestational diabetes, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, diabetes prevalence trends, racial and ethnic disparities, Hispanic women, non-Hispanic white women, Northern California, perinatal outcomes, gestational diabetes screening, health equity
MeSH terms
Adult, Asian, Black or African American, California, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Ethnicity, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Obesity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Pregnancy in Diabetics, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Logistic Models, White People, Health Status Disparities, Young Adult

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