CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Gestational diabetes in the United States: temporal changes in prevalence rates between 1979 and 2010

Open access
Lavery, JA, Friedman, AM, Keyes, KM, Wright, JD, Ananth, CV·2017·BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.14236PMC PMC5303559
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To examine age–period–cohort effects on trends in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevalence in the US, and to evaluate how these trends have affected the rates of stillbirth and large for gestational age (LGA)/macrosomia. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: USA, 1979–2010. Population: Over 125 million pregnancies (3 337 284 GDM cases) associated with hospitalisations. Methods: Trends in GDM prevalence were examined via weighted Poisson models to parse out the extent to which GDM trends can be attributed to maternal age, period of delivery, and maternal birth cohort. Multilevel models were used to assess the contribution of population effects to the rate of GDM. Log‐linear Poisson regression models were used to estimate the contributions of the increasing GDM rates to changes in the rates of LGA and stillbirth between 1979–81 and 2008–10. Main outcome measures: Rates and rate ratios (RR s). Results: Compared with 1979–1980 (0.3%), the rate of GDM has increased to 5.8% in 2008–10, indicating a strong period effect. Substantial age and modest cohort effects were evident. The period effect is partly explained by period trends in body mass index (BMI), race, and maternal smoking. The increasing prevalence of GDM is associated with a 184% (95% CI 180–188%) decline in the rate of LGA/macrosomia and a 0.75% (95% CI 0.74–0.76) increase in the rate of stillbirths for 2008–10, compared with 1979–81. Conclusions: The temporal increase in GDM can be attributed to period of pregnancy and age. Increasing BMI appears to partially contribute to the GDM increase in the US. Tweetable abstract: The increasing prevalence of GDM can be attributed to period of delivery and increasing maternal age.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1471-0528.14236

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 1961 the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus was estimated to be less than 1%, and it increased from 0.3% in 1979-1980 to 5.8% in 2008-2010.

    “While in 1961 the incidence of GDM was estimated to be less than 1% [49,50], it increased from 0.3% in 1979–1980 to 5.8% in 2008–2010 [51].”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [51]

  • Family history of diabetes, particularly in a first-degree relative, increases the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus.

    “According to previous studies, family history of diabetes (particularly in a first-degree relative) increases the risk for GDM [64, 66].”

    From Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Results and Discussion discuss GDM risk in relation to age, BMI, race and smoking, but do not address family history. Searches for first-degree relatives and familial risk found no passage linking either to increased GDM risk. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [1]International Diabetes Federation IDF Diabetes Atlas 6th New York Springer 2014
  2. [2]Getahun D Nath C Ananth CV Chavez MR Smulian JC Gestational diabetes in the United States: temporal trends 1989 through 2004 Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008 198 525 e1 5 18279822
  3. [3]Kim C Ferrara A Gestational Diabetes During and After Pregnancy London, UK Springer 2010
  4. [4]Bryson CL Ioannou GN Rulyak SJ Critchlow C Association between gestational diabetes and pregnancy-induced hypertension Am J Epidemiol 2003 158 1148 53 14652299
  5. [6]Crane SS Wojtowycz MA Dye TD Aubry RH Artal R Association between pre-pregnancy obesity and the risk of cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 1997 89 213 16 9015022
  6. [7]Xiong X Saunders LD Wang FL Demianczuk NN Gestational diabetes mellitus: prevalence, risk factors, maternal and infant outcomes Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001 75 221 8 11728481
  7. [8]Sobngwi E Boudou P Mauvais-Jarvis F Leblanc H Velho G Vexiau P Effect of a diabetic environment in utero on predisposition to type 2 diabetes Lancet 2003 361 1861 5 12788573
  8. [9]Xiang AH Wang X Martinez MP Walthall JC Curry ES Page K Association of maternal diabetes with autism in offspring JAMA 2015 313 1425 34 25871668
  9. [10]Freinkel NJJ American Diabetes Association Workshop-Conference on gestational diabetes: summary and recommendations Diabetes Care 1980 3 499 501 7389568
  10. [11]Alberti KG Zimmet PZ Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus provisional report of a WHO consultation Diabet Med 1998 15 539 53 9686693
  11. [12]Ferrara A Kahn HS Quesenberry CP Riley C Hedderson MM An increase in the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus: Northern California, 1991–2000 Obstet Gynecol 2004 103 526 33 14990417
  12. [13]Dabelea D Snell-Bergeon JK Hartsfield CL Bischoff KJ Hamman RF McDuffie RS Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) over time and by birth cohort: Kaiser Permanente of Colorado GDM screening program Diabetes Care 2005 28 579 84 15735191
  13. [16]Ananth CV Keyes KM Wapner RJ Pre-eclampsia rates in the United States, 1980–2010: age-period-cohort analysis BMJ 2013 347 f6564 24201165 PMC3898425
  14. [17]Keyes KM Ananth CV Age, period, and cohort effects in perinatal epidemiology: implications and considerations Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2014 28 277 9 24920490 PMC5647997
  15. [20]Ananth CV Vintzileos AM Trends in cesarean delivery at preterm gestation and association with perinatal mortality Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011 204 505 e1 8 21457916
  16. [21]Ferrara A Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: a public health perspective Diabetes Care 2007 30 Suppl 2 S141 6 17596462
  17. [22]Lydon-Rochelle MT Holt VL Cardenas V Nelson JC Easterling TR Gardella C The reporting of pre-existing maternal medical conditions and complications of pregnancy on birth certificates and in hospital discharge data Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005 193 125 34 16021070
  18. [24]Tsai IH Chen CP Sun FJ Wu CH Yeh SL Associations of the pre-pregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain with pregnancy outcomes in Taiwanese women Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2012 21 82 7 22374564
  19. [25]Ray JG Vermeulen MJ Shapiro JL Kenshole AB Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus, and the influence of maternal obesity and weight gain: the DEPOSIT study. Diabetes Endocrine Pregnancy Outcome Study in Toronto QJM 2001 94 347 56 11435630
  20. [26]Makgoba M Savvidou MD Steer PJ An analysis of the interrelationship between maternal age, body mass index and racial origin in the development of gestational diabetes mellitus BJOG 2012 119 276 82 22044452
  21. [27]Martin JA Hamilton BE Sutton PD Ventura SJ Menacker F Munson ML Births: final data for 2002 Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003 52 1 113 14717305
  22. [28]O’Sullivan JB Mahan CM Criteria for the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test in Pregnancy Diabetes 1964 13 278 85 14166677
  23. [29]Metzger BE Coustan DR Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee Diabetes Care 1998 21 Suppl 2 B161 7 9704245
  24. [32]ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 30, September 2001 (replaces Technical Bulletin Number 200, December 1994). Gestational diabetes Obstet Gynecol 2001 98 525 38 11547793
  25. [35]Bonomo M Cetin I Pisoni MP Faden D Mion E Taricco E Flexible treatment of gestational diabetes modulated on ultrasound evaluation of intrauterine growth: a controlled randomized clinical trial Diabetes Metab 2004 30 237 44 15223975
  26. [36]Brown R Wijekoon JH Fernando A Johnstone ED Heazell AE Continuous objective recording of fetal heart rate and fetal movements could reliably identify fetal compromise, which could reduce stillbirth rates by facilitating timely management Med Hypotheses 2014 83 410 17 25109874
  27. [37]Chen HY Chauhan SP Ananth CV Vintzileos AM Abuhamad AZ Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and its relationship to neonatal and infant mortality in the United States Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011 204 491 e1 10 21752753
  28. [38]Ananth CV Chauhan SP Chen HY D’Alton ME Vintzileos AM Electronic fetal monitoring in the United States: temporal trends and adverse perinatal outcomes Obstet Gynecol 2013 121 927 33 23635727
  29. [41]Ogden CL Carroll MD Curtin LR McDowell MA Tabak CJ Flegal KM Prevalence of overweight and obesity in the United States, 1999–2004 JAMA 2006 295 1549 55 16595758

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lavery, J., Friedman, A., Keyes, K., Wright, J., & Ananth, C.
Affiliations
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology College of Physicians and Surgeons Columbia University New York NY USA
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Epidemiology Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health Columbia University New York NY USA
Corresponding author
Ananth, CV
ORCID
Venue
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-11
Volume
124
Issue
5
Pages
804-813
ISSN
  • 0306-5456 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-0328
  • 1471-0528
DOI
10.1111/1471-0528.14236
PMC
PMC5303559
OpenAlex
W2514378855
Cited by
275
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 1
FWCI
33.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA021511)
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, prevalence trends, age-period-cohort analysis, period effects, maternal age, birth cohort, body mass index, stillbirth, large for gestational age, macrosomia, maternal smoking, racial differences, United States
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Maternal Age, Middle Aged, Pregnancy, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, United States, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Diabetes, Gestational, Stillbirth, Young Adult

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