Cited by 3Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementPregnancy and Medication ImpactMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Effect of interventions in pregnant women with mildly impaired glucose tolerance

Shindo, Ryosuke, Aoki, Shigeru, Kasai, Junko, Nakanishi, Sayuri, Saigusa, Yusuke, Miyagi, Etsuko·2021·Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research

Abstract

Aim: In 2010, the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) changed the diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) to follow the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria. As a result, many pregnant women with mildly impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) were newly diagnosed with GDM. This study aimed to verify the effects of interventions in pregnant women with mild IGT who were newly diagnosed with GDM based on the present JSOG criteria. Methods: We defined mild IGT as a degree of IGT that would be diagnosed as GDM according to the present but not the previous JSOG criteria. We compared pregnancy and delivery outcomes in women with mild IGT who delivered a singleton at 22 weeks of gestation or later, between 2000 and 2009 (untreated group, n = 503) versus between 2011 and 2017 (treated group, n = 781). Results: The incidence of GDM‐related composite complications such as macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome was comparable in the untreated and treated groups (10.1% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.11). The pregnancy outcomes were also comparable, except for infant birth weights, which were lower in the treated group than in the untreated group (3014 g vs. 3094 g; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Pregnancy outcomes were not affected by the interventions in pregnant women with mild IGT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jog.14783

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?

  • In 2010, Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology changed diagnostic guidelines for GDM to IADPSG criteria.

    “In 2010 the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) changed the diagnostic guidelines for detecting GDM to the IADPSG criteria [224].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shindo, R., Aoki, S., Kasai, J., Nakanishi, S., Saigusa, Y., & Miyagi, E.
Affiliations
  • Yokohama City University Medical Center (JP)
  • Yokohama City University (JP)
Corresponding author
Aoki, Shigeru
Venue
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-04
Volume
47
Issue
6
Pages
2059-2065
ISSN
  • 1341-8076 (ISSN-L)
  • 1447-0756
OpenAlex
W3139567546
Cited by
3
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy and Medication Impact
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, impaired glucose tolerance, IADPSG criteria, GDM treatment, pregnancy outcomes, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, birth weight
MeSH terms
Blood Glucose, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Japan, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Diabetes, Gestational, Glucose Intolerance, Pregnant People, Pregnant Women

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