Cited by 234Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Saeedi, Maryam, Cao, Yang, Fadl, Helena, Gustafson, Hanne, Simmons, David·2021·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

AIMS: Quantify the proportional increase in gestational diabetes (GDM) prevalence when implementing the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria compared to prior GDM criteria, and to assess risk factors that might affect the change in prevalence. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of cohort and cross-sectional studies between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018 among pregnant women with GDM using IADPSG criteria compared to, and stratified by, old GDM criteria. Web of science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Open Grey and Grey literature reports were included. The relative risk for each study was calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed by maternal age, body mass index, study design, country of publication, screening method, sampling method and data stratified according to diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-one cohort and cross-sectional studies with 136 705 women were included. Implementing the IADPSG criteria was associated with a 75% (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.53-2.01) increase in number of women with GDM with evidence of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG criteria increase the prevalence of GDM, but allow movement towards more homogeneity. More studies are needed of the benefits, harms, psychological effects and health costs of implementing the IADPSG criteria.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108642

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?

  • After adoption of IADPSG standards in Australia, the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus increased from 20 to 75%.

    “Researchers from Australia showed that after the adoption of the IADPSG standards the incidence of GDM increased from 20 to 75%, but it was also justified by improvements in the potential long-term benefits and perinatal morbidity [17,18,19].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 234

Authors
Saeedi, M., Cao, Y., Fadl, H., Gustafson, H., & Simmons, D.
Affiliations
  • Örebro University (SE)
  • Camden and Campbelltown Hospitals (AU)
Corresponding author
Saeedi, Maryam
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
172
Pages
108642
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3117985840
Cited by
234
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 16
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Region Örebro län (OLL-889211, OLL-930268)
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, IADPSG criteria, diagnostic criteria revision, GDM prevalence, overdiagnosis, risk factors, pregnant women
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, Incidence, Prevalence, 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