Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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