Cited by 182Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiet and metabolism studiesDietary Effects on Health

The Effects of Carbohydrate Restriction in Patients With Diet-Controlled Gestational Diabetes

Major, C·1998·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of carbohydrate restriction on perinatal outcome in patients with diet-controlled gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: Women with diet-controlled GDM were divided non-randomly into two groups based on their dietary carbohydrate content: those with low dietary carbohydrate content (below 42%) and those with high dietary carbohydrate content (exceeding 45%). Subjects kept dietary accounts and were followed with daily fasting and postprandial glucose assessments. Subjects also were tested daily for urinary ketones. Glycosylated hemoglobin, mean fasting and postprandial glucose values, incidence of macrosomia and large for gestational age (LGA) infants, cesarean deliveries for cephalopelvic disproportion and macrosomia, and need for insulin therapy were compared between the groups. RESULTS: The two groups were identical in terms of demographic characteristics. Significant reductions in the postprandial glucose values were seen among subjects in the low-carbohydrate group (P < .04). Fewer subjects in the low-carbohydrate group required the addition of insulin for glucose control (P < .047; relative risk [RR] 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02, 1.00). The incidence of LGA infants was significantly lower in the low-carbohydrate group (P < .035; RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.05, 0.91). Subjects in the low carbohydrate group also had a lower rate of cesarean deliveries for cephalopelvic disproportion and macrosomia (P < .037; RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04, 0.94). CONCLUSION: Carbohydrate restriction in patients with diet-controlled GDM results in improved glycemic control, less need for insulin therapy, a decrease in the incidence LGA infants, and a decrease in cesarean deliveries for cephalopelvic disproportion and macrosomia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00003-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Major, C.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Major, C
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
1998-04
Volume
91
Issue
4
Pages
600-604
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056696584
Cited by
182
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Diet and metabolism studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Dietary Effects on Health
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, carbohydrate restriction, low-carbohydrate diet, carbohydrate intake, glycemic control, postprandial blood glucose, insulin therapy, macrosomia, large for gestational age, cesarean section, perinatal outcomes, ketosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Cesarean Section, Dietary Carbohydrates, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Diabetes, Gestational, Treatment Outcome, Postprandial Period

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