Cited by 28Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsPregnancy and Medication Impact

Gestational diabetes in Korea: Temporal trends in prevalence, treatment, and short-term consequences from a national health insurance claims database between 2012 and 2016

Jung, Chan-Hee, Jung, Sang-Hee, Choi, Dughyun, Kim, Bo-Yeon, Kim, Chul-Hee, Mok, Ji-Oh·2021·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

Aims This population-based cross-sectional study aimed to investigate recent trends in the prevalence and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Korea. We also investigated trends in annual prevalence rate of pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) and cesarean section (C-section) in GDM patients. Methods We used data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment-National Patient Sample (HIRA-NPS) database, 2012-2016. Non-GDM (n = 53,698) and GDM (n = 7956) patient data were analyzed for each year. Results The annual increase in the prevalence of GDM was 11.1% over 2012-2016, with a significant continuously increasing trend (p < 0.0001). Age-stratified analysis showed that the annual prevalence of GDM significantly increased in patients below 40 years of age, but was not statistically significant as an increasing trend in patients above 40 years of age. Annual PIH prevalence rate among GDM women showed decreasing trend but was not statistically significant. An annual increase in C-section rate above 5% in GDM patients was statistically significant in both unadjusted and adjusted for age and PIH models. Conclusions The prevalence of GDM in Korean women and C-section rates in women with GDM showed a significantly increasing trend, 2012-2016. There is a need for further efforts to monitor this trend and to identify associated risk factors for GDM in Korean women.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108586

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 South Korea, Jung et al. performed a cross-sectional study between 2012 and 2016 and assessed GDM occurrence at 11.1%.

    “Between 2012 and 2016 Jung et al. performed a cross-sectional study on the basis of which the GDM occurrence was assessed at 11.1% [222].”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 29 · Cited by 28

Authors
Jung, C.-H., Jung, S.-H., Choi, D., Kim, B.-Y., Kim, C.-H., & Mok, J.-O.
Affiliations
  • Soonchunhyang University (KR)
  • CHA University (KR)
Corresponding author
Mok, Ji-Oh
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
171
Pages
108586
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3111848504
Cited by
28
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Soonchunhyang University
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, prevalence trends, gestational hypertension, cesarean section, GDM treatment, Korean women, age-stratified analysis, risk factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, National Health Programs, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Databases, Factual, Diabetes, Gestational, History, 21st Century, Republic of Korea

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