CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesPregnancy and Medication Impact

Are women positive for the One Step but negative for the Two Step screening tests for gestational diabetes at higher risk for adverse outcomes?

Open access
Caissutti, Claudia, Khalifeh, Adeeb, Saccone, Gabriele, Berghella, Vincenzo·2018·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
DOI 10.1111/aogs.13254
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate if women meeting criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by the One Step test as per International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria but not by other less strict criteria have adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with GDM‐negative controls. The primary outcome was the incidence of macrosomia, defined as birthweight > 4000 g. Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until May 2017. All studies identifying pregnant women negative at the Two Step test, but positive at the One Step test for IADPSG criteria were included. We excluded studies that randomized women to the One Step vs. the Two Step tests; studies that compared different criteria within the same screening method; randomized studies comparing treatments for GDM; and studies comparing incidence of GDM in women doing the One Step test vs. the Two Step test. Results: Eight retrospective cohort studies, including 29 983 women, were included. Five study groups and four control groups were identified. The heterogeneity between the studies was high. Gestational hypertension, preeclampsia and large for gestational age, as well as in some analyses cesarean delivery, macrosomia and preterm birth, were significantly more frequent, and small for gestational age in some analyses significantly less frequent, in women GDM‐positive by the One Step, but not the Two Step. Conclusion: Women meeting criteria for GDM by IADPSG criteria but not by other less strict criteria have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes such as gestational hypertension, preeclampsia and large for gestational age, compared with GDM‐negative controls. Based on these findings, and evidence from other studies that treatment decreases these adverse outcomes, we suggest screening for GDM using the One Step IADPSG criteria.

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/aogs.13254

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • A recent systematic review including eight cohort studies demonstrated that women with GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria but not by the Carpenter-Coustan criteria or Canadian Diabetes Association criteria had a higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia, cesarean delivery and large for gestational age birth, than women without GDM.

    “A recent systematic review including eight cohort studies demonstrated that women with GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria but not by the Carpenter-Coustan criteria or Canadian Diabetes Association criteria had a higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia, cesarean delivery and LGA birth, than women without GDM [24].”

    From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Diagnostic Approaches and Maternal-Offspring Complications (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Caissutti, C., Khalifeh, A., Saccone, G., & Berghella, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Udine (IT)
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
Corresponding author
Berghella, Vincenzo
ORCID
Venue
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-12
Volume
97
Issue
2
Pages
122-134
ISSN
  • 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0412
DOI
10.1111/aogs.13254
OpenAlex
W2765991764
Semantic Scholar
da6b11b57838d7146a88958ea98ca67539cb1f01
Cited by
32
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, two-step test, IADPSG criteria, glucose tolerance test, GDM screening, adverse pregnancy outcomes, macrosomia, large for gestational age, preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, cesarean section, preterm birth, small for gestational age
MeSH terms
Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, 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