Prevalence of gestational diabetes and risk of complications before and after initiation of a general systematic two-step screening strategy in Germany (2012-2014)
Abstract
Aims Information on the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus is scarce on national and international level. On July 1st, 2013, a general two-step screening was implemented in Germany harmonizing gestational diabetes diagnoses. We aim to provide prevalence estimates for gestational diabetes and pregnancy-related complications for the large region of North Rhine for the 12 months before and after introduction of the general screening. Methods Routine care data covering all outpatient diagnoses of more than 150,000 pregnancies per 12-month period in women aged 15-55 years was used to determine cases of gestational diabetes. Gestational diabetes diagnosis and pregnancy-related complications were assessed according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10). Relative Risks for pregnancy-related complications were calculated in pregnancies with and without gestational diabetes. Results Before the screening, diagnosis of gestational diabetes was made in 6.02% of pregnancies and in 6.81% after this date (other types of diabetes mellitus: 1.67% and 1.76% respectively). The prevalence of GDM increased with age and was highest at age 36-40 years (8.45%). The relative increase in prevalence after introduction of the screening was highest in the age group≤25 years (24.9%). The frequency of pregnancy-related complications such as hypertension, pre-eclampsia, cesarean section was increased in pregnancies with gestational diabetes in comparison to those without independent of observation period. Conclusions We found a high prevalence of gestational diabetes, which has relatively increased by 13.12% after the introduction of the general screening.
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 the North Rhine region of Germany, the GDM prevalence rate relatively increased by approximately 13.12% after universal screening began.
“They found that the prevalence rate relatively increased by approximately 13.12% after the beginning of universal screening.”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [125]
In the North Rhine region of Germany, GDM incidence was 6.02% in the 12 months before universal screening and 6.81% in the 12 months after.
“Researchers from the North Rhine region analyzed data from 12 months before and 12 months after the introduction of universal screening with an incidence of 6.02% before, and 6.81% after.”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [125]
In the North Rhine region of Germany, GDM prevalence was highest among women between 36 and 40 years.
“Additionally, the GDM prevalence was the highest among women between 36 and 40 years [125].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [125]
Cites
Yogev, Y., Xenakis, E. M. J., & Langer, O. (2004) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.074 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-Up Care
Kleinwechter, H., Schäfer-Graf, U., Bührer, C., Hoesli, I., Kainer, F., Kautzky-Willer, A., Pawlowski, B., Schunck, K., Somville, T., & Sorger, M. (2014) · Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1366412 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Behboudi-Gandevani, S., Amiri, M., Bidhendi Yarandi, R., & Ramezani Tehrani, F. (2019) · Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome · doi:10.1186/s13098-019-0406-1 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
The Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes
Melchior, H., Kurch-Bek, D., & Mund, M. (2017) · Deutsches Ärzteblatt international · doi:10.3238/arztebl.2017.0412 · Cited by 185 · 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
- Tamayo, T., Tamayo, M., Rathmann, W., & Potthoff, P.
- Affiliations
- Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Tamayo, T.
- ORCID
- Rathmann, W.
- Venue
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 115
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2291721747
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 6.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Federal Ministry of Health, Germany
- Ministry of School, Science and Research of the State of North-Rhine-Westphalia
- 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
- gestational diabetes mellitus, prevalence, pregnancy complications, two-stage screening, prenatal screening, preeclampsia, hypertension in pregnancy, cesarean section, screening program implementation, North Rhine
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Germany, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Pre-Eclampsia, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Diabetes, Gestational, 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