The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Pragmatic, Randomized Clinical Trial of Gestational Diabetes Screening
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Although experts recommend universal screening for gestational diabetes, consensus is lacking about which of two recommended screening approaches should be used. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing one-step screening (i.e., a glucose-tolerance test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 75-g glucose load in the fasting state) with two-step screening (a glucose challenge test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 50-g glucose load in the nonfasting state, followed, if positive, by an oral glucose-tolerance test with a 100-g glucose load in the fasting state) in all pregnant women who received care in two health systems. Guidelines for the treatment of gestational diabetes were consistent with the two screening approaches. The primary outcomes were a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age infants, a perinatal composite outcome (stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or any arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury), gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and primary cesarean section. RESULTS: A total of 23,792 women underwent randomization; women with more than one pregnancy during the trial could have been assigned to more than one type of screening. A total of 66% of the women in the one-step group and 92% of those in the two-step group adhered to the assigned screening. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed in 16.5% of the women assigned to the one-step approach and in 8.5% of those assigned to the two-step approach (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.79 to 2.11). In intention-to-treat analyses, the respective incidences of the other primary outcomes were as follows: large-for-gestational-age infants, 8.9% and 9.2% (relative risk, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.05); perinatal composite outcome, 3.1% and 3.0% (relative risk, 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.23); gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, 13.6% and 13.5% (relative risk, 1.00; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.08); and primary cesarean section, 24.0% and 24.6% (relative risk, 0.98; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.02). The results were materially unchanged in intention-to-treat analyses with inverse probability weighting to account for differential adherence to the screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more diagnoses of gestational diabetes with the one-step approach than with the two-step approach, there were no significant between-group differences in the risks of the primary outcomes relating to perinatal and maternal complications. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ScreenR2GDM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02266758.).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The HAPO study showed that increasing glycemia is associated with increased neonatal adverse outcomes such as macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and cesarean delivery.64,115–119”
From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [64]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The HAPO study confirmed findings in Pima Indians1409 that, even among offspring of women without GDM as it is currently defined, there is a linear association between maternal glucose concentration during pregnancy and newborn weight, rates of large-for-gestational-age, and cesarean delivery.64,1418–1421”
From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [64]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A similar proportion that were diagnosed with GDM using the two approaches required medication to manage glucose levels during pregnancy (42.6% [n=783] for one-step and 45.5% [n=431] for two-step), meaning that more women who underwent the one-step approach received treatment to manage glucose during pregnancy.”
From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Diagnostic Approaches and Maternal-Offspring Complications (2022) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Taken together, these RCTs suggest a significant increase in both GDM incidence and health care utilization when using the one-step approach suggested by the IADPSG, with no commensurate improvement in adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the two-step approach (Table 2).”
From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Diagnostic Approaches and Maternal-Offspring Complications (2022) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Unfortunately, approximately 25% of those assigned to the 1-step group went through the 2-step process and the caregivers were not blinded to assignment of the participants.”
From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [261]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The frequency of GDM detected with the 1-step process was approximately twice that found with the 2-step process, but no significant differences in prespecified single or composite outcomes were found between the two groups.”
From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [261]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In a large randomized trial (among 23,792 pregnant women), Hillier et al. showed that one-step screening, as compared with two-step screening, doubled the incidence of the diagnosis of GDM, but did not affect the risks of LGA, adverse perinatal outcomes, primary Caesarean section, or gestational hypertension or pre-eclampsia [32].”
From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, different glucose cutoffs for the 2-step screening were applied at the two sites.”
From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [261]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Data that compare population-wide outcomes with one-step versus two-step approaches have been inconsistent to date (213,230 -232).”
From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 (2024) · cites this paper as [213]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, a recent randomized trial of testing for GDM at 24 -28 weeks of gestation by the one-step method using IADPSG criteria versus the two-step method using a 1-h 50-g glucose loading test (GLT) and, if positive, a 3-h OGTT by Carpenter-Coustan criteria identi fi ed twice as many individuals with GDM using the one-step method compared with the two-step method. Despite treating more individuals”
From 2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024 (2024) · cites this paper as [213]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Data that compare population-wide outcomes with one-step versus two-step approaches have been inconsistent to date (196,(212)(213)(214).”
From 2. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [196]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The results showed that using the one-step strategy, GDM was diagnosed in doubled number of women in comparison with the two-step method.”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, there was no disparity between maternal and perinatal outcomes, while more pregnant women were treated for GDM after diagnosis with the one-step method [44].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“while more pregnant women were treated for GDM after diagnosis with the one-step method [44].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [44]
In the citing paper
“The prespecified primary outcomes (estimated incidences) were GDM requiring insulin or oral agents (20%), gestational hypertension (blood pressure of >140/90 twice after 20 weeks, no previous hypertension diagnosis, 15%), macrosomia (birthweight at the >90th percentile, 12%), cesarean delivery (25%), and a perinatal composite outcome consisting of stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, b”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The study design assumed that GDM would be diagnosed in 18% of women randomized to 1-step testing (group 1) and 6% of women randomized to 2-step screening (group 2), a 12% difference.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Although GDM was more common in the women randomized to receive 1-step testing (16.5% vs 8.5%), there were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to large for gestational age (LGA) infants (8.9% vs 9.2%), gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (13.6% vs 13.5%), primary cesarean delivery (24% vs 24.6%), or the primary composite outcome (3.1% vs 3.0%).”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The authors reported no signifi-cant between-group differences in adverse outcomes between women diagnosed using either approach, despite the fact that the number of women diagnosed as having GDM, and treated accordingly, were approximately doubled in women randomized to the 1step approach.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The investigators do not describe estimates of the effect of treatment of GDM underpinning the estimated relative risk of 1.2 for most of the adverse outcomes.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“we shall endeavor to outline why we believe that Hillier et al's 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) fell short of delivering a definitive answer to which of the 2 protocols is most advantageous to our patients and to the healthcare system.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The recent RCT by Hillier et al 1 was intended to investigate whether the 1step or 2-step approach to GDM screening and treatment results in improved outcomes in an entire obstetrical population in the setting of standard clinical care, including the excellent Kaiser Permanente system's protocol-based approach to care.27”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In calculating the needed sample size, the authors decided that a relative risk of 1.2, meaning a 20% higher rate for each adverse outcome in group 2 than in group 1, would be meaningful evidence of a benefit of the 1-step protocol.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In group 1, of 11,922 women, 3247 (27%) were screened by the 2-step protocol instead of the intended 1-step protocol, and 795 (6.7%) had neither type of screening (778 had none at all; 17 had only a first trimester A1c).”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In addition, the high level of suboptimal adherence to the assigned testing protocols, particularly the crossover in group 1 to the 2-step protocol of 27% of randomized women and the nontesting of so many women in each group, further throws into question the intention-to-treat analyses.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“A total of 92 GDMs were diagnosed after OGTTs based on screening tests of 130 to 139 mg/dL, comprising 9.7% of the 945 GDMs diagnosed in group 2.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Another inconsistency within the protocol was that the cutoff for the 50 g, 1-hour screen in group 2 was !130 mg/ dL for women recruited at the Kaiser Northwest site (N¼8140), but !140 mg/ dL in those recruited in Hawaii (N¼3730).”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The fact that the institution of medical treatment with insulin or oral antidiabetic agents was similar between the 2 groups (43% and 46%), using the same protocol-based approach to care”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In group 2, of 11,870 women, 281 (2.4%) had 1-step screening instead of the assigned 2-step protocol, and 708 (6%) had neither type of screening (672 had none at all; 36 had only a first trimester A1c).”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The subset of 165 group 2 women who did not have GDM by the 2-step protocol and were not counted among the GDMs, but were treated as such because of elevated fasting glucose levels, presumably lowered the number of adverse outcomes in group 2 and helped blur the comparison with adverse outcomes in group 1.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The study design included identifying and treating women in group 2 who did not have 2 or more elevated values on the 100 g, 3-hour OGTT but whose fasting plasma glucose was 95 mg/dL or above (Supplemental Appendix, Section 2.5 1 ).”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Demonstrated opportunities for improvement in long-term morbidity such as future type 2 diabetes mellitus in the woman with GDM were ignored in the study, as were potential opportunities for”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“The rate of GDM in the obstetrical population using the 1-step approach, even as projected by us to be 19.9% in the RCT by Hillier et al 1 is lower than the prediabetes rate in reproductive aged women.”
From One-step or 2-step testing for gestational diabetes: which is better? (2021) · cites this paper as [1]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology
Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. Á., & Brumback, B. (2000) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 · Cited by 5,581
Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes
(2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0707943 · Cited by 5,563
(2013) · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000437382.03963.88 · Cited by 3,961
2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020
American Diabetes Association (2020) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc20-s002 · Cited by 3,187
Effect of Treatment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Pregnancy Outcomes
Crowther, C. A., Hiller, J. E., Moss, J. R., McPhee, A. J., Jeffries, W. S., & Robinson, J. S. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa042973 · Cited by 3,159
Akaike's Information Criterion in Generalized Estimating Equations
Pan, W. (2001) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00120.x · Cited by 2,545
A Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Treatment for Mild Gestational Diabetes
Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., Thom, E., Carpenter, M. W., Ramin, S. M., Casey, B., Wapner, R. J., Varner, M. W., Rouse, D. J., Thorp, J. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0902430 · Cited by 2,122
Onuegbu, A. J., Olisekodiaka, J. M., Udo, J., Umeononihu, O. S., Amah, U. K., Okwara, J. E., & Atuegbu, C. (2015) · Medical Principles and Practice · doi:10.1159/000381778 · Cited by 2,057
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
(2018) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002501 · Cited by 1,820
Association of Gestational Weight Gain With Maternal and Infant Outcomes
Goldstein, R. F., Abell, S. K., Ranasinha, S., Misso, M. L., Boyle, J. A., Black, M. H., Li, N., Hu, G., Corrado, F., Rode, L., et al. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.3635 · Cited by 1,754
Oken, E., Kleinman, K. P., Rich-Edwards, J., & Gillman, M. W. (2003) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/1471-2431-3-6 · Cited by 940
Postnatal glucose homeostasis in late-preterm and term infants
Adamkin, D. H., & Committee on Fetus and Newborn (2011) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2010-3851 · Cited by 771
Sacks, D. A., Hadden, D. R., Maresh, M., Deerochanawong, C., Dyer, A. R., Metzger, B. E., Lowe, L. P., Coustan, D. R., Hod, M., Oats, J. J. N., et al. (2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc11-1641 · Cited by 687
Childhood Obesity and Metabolic Imprinting
Hillier, T. A., Pedula, K. L., Schmidt, M. M., Mullen, J. A., Charles, M.-A., & Pettitt, D. J. (2007) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc06-2361 · Cited by 656
Self-citation(2013) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000425668.87506.4c · Cited by 590
Lowe, W. L., Scholtens, D. M., Kuang, A., Linder, B., Lawrence, J. M., Lebenthal, Y., McCance, D., Hamilton, J., Nodzenski, M., Talbot, O., et al. (2019) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc18-1646 · Cited by 574
14. Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2020
American Diabetes Association (2019) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc20-s014 · Cited by 405
Scholtens, D. M., Kuang, A., Lowe, L. P., Hamilton, J., Lawrence, J. M., Lebenthal, Y., Brickman, W. J., Clayton, P., Ma, R. C., McCance, D., et al. (2019) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc18-2021 · Cited by 310
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00008 · Cited by 291
(2013) · PubMed · Cited by 279
Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on obesity in the next generation
Gillman, M. W., Oakey, H., Baghurst, P. A., Volkmer, R. E., Robinson, J. S., & Crowther, C. A. (2010) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc09-1810 · Cited by 269
Moyer, V. A., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2014) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m13-2905 · Cited by 223
for the International Weight Management in Pregnancy (i-WIP) Collaborative Group, Rogozińska, E., Zamora, J., Marlin, N., Betrán, A. P., Astrup, A. V., Bogaerts, A., Cecatti, J. G., Dodd, J. M., Facchinetti, F., et al. (2019) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2472-7 · Cited by 172
Association Between Gestational Weight Gain and Perinatal Outcomes
Kominiarek, M. A., Saade, G., Mele, L., Bailit, J., Reddy, U. M., Wapner, R. J., Varner, M. W., Thorp, J. M., Caritis, S. N., Prasad, M., et al. (2018) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002854 · Cited by 148
Feldman, R. K., Tieu, R. S., & Yasumura, L. (2016) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001132 · Cited by 105
Kong, J. M., Lim, K. I., & Thompson, D. M. (2014) · Canadian Journal of Diabetes · doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2014.09.007 · Cited by 43
Effects of Changing Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Queensland, Australia
Meloncelli, N. J. L., Barnett, A. G., dʼEmden, M. C., & de Jersey, S. (2020) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000003790 · Cited by 29
The relationship of maternal glycemia to childhood obesity and metabolic dysfunction‡
Landon, M. B., Mele, L., Varner, M. W., Casey, B. M., Reddy, U. M., Wapner, R. J., Rouse, D. J., Tita, A., Thorp, J. M., Chien, E. K., et al. (2018) · The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.1080/14767058.2018.1484094 · Cited by 26
Hillier, T. A., Ogasawara, K. K., Pedula, K. L., & Vesco, K. K. (2013) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.06.044 · Cited by 20
Self-citationChanging the Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus?
Landon, M. B. (2015) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001225 · Cited by 10
Pedula, K. L., Hillier, T. A., Ogasawara, K. K., Vesco, K. K., Lubarsky, S., Oshiro, C. E. S., & VanMarter, J. (2019) · Contemporary Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2019.105829 · Cited by 7
Self-citationScifres, C., Abebe, K. Z., Simhan, H. N., Catalano, P. M., Costacou, T., COMER, D. M., Orris, S. R., LY, K., Decker, A., Méndez, D. D., et al. (2020) · Diabetes · doi:10.2337/db20-187-or · Cited by 1
AAP Publications Reaffirmed or Retired
(2015) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2338 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hernán MA Robins JM. Causal inference: what if. Boca Raton FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press 2020.
- Institute of Medicine National Research Council. Weight gain during pregnancy: reexamining the guidelines. Washington DC: National Academies Press 2009.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee (2022) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc22-s002 · Cited by 4,792
2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2023
ElSayed, N. A., Aleppo, G., Aroda, V. R., Bannuru, R. R., Brown, F. M., Bruemmer, D., Collins, B. S., Gaglia, J. L., Hilliard, M. E., Isaacs, D. M., et al. (2022) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc23-s002 · Cited by 2,841
2. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2024
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed, N. A., Aleppo, G., Bannuru, R. R., Bruemmer, D., Collins, B. S., Ekhlaspour, L., Gaglia, J. L., Hilliard, M. E., Johnson, E. L., et al. (2024) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc24-s002 · Cited by 2,086
2. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2025
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, ElSayed, N. A., McCoy, R. G., Aleppo, G., Balapattabi, K., Beverly, E. A., Briggs Early, K., Bruemmer, D., Ebekozien, O., Echouffo-Tcheugui, J. B., et al. (2025) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc25-s002 · Cited by 1,393
A Clinical Update on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Sweeting, A., Wong, J., Murphy, H. R., & Ross, G. P. (2022) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/endrev/bnac003 · Cited by 928
Metadata
- Authors
- Hillier, T. A., Pedula, K. L., Ogasawara, K. K., Vesco, K. K., Oshiro, C. E. S., Lubarsky, S. L., & Van Marter, J.
- Affiliations
- Kaiser Permanente (US)
- From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (T.A.H., K.L.P., K.K.V., J.V.M.), and the Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwest Permanente, Kaiser Permanente (S.L.L.), Portland, Oregon; and the Center for Integrated Health Care Research (T.A.H., C.E.S.O.) and the Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (K.K.O.), Hawaii Permanente Medical Group (K.L.P., K.K.O.), Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu.
- ORCID
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2021-03-11
- Volume
- 384
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 895-904
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- PMC
- PMC9041326
- OpenAlex
- W3135372304
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 40
- FWCI
- 46.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD074794)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Keywords
- gestational diabetes mellitus, gestational diabetes screening, two-stage screening, glucose challenge test, oral glucose tolerance test, large for gestational age, perinatal outcomes, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, cesarean section, screening adherence, maternal outcomes, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Glucose, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Incidence, 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
