Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “one-Step” and “two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
Open accessAbstract
Objective. To compare the prevalence and pregnancy outcomes of GDM between those screened by the “one-step” (75 gm GTT) and “two-step” (100 gm GTT) methods. Methods. A prospective study was conducted on singleton pregnancies at low or average risk of GDM. All were screened between 24 and 28 weeks, using the one-step or two-step method based on patients’ preference. The primary outcome was prevalence of GDM, and secondary outcomes included birthweight, gestational age, rates of preterm birth, small/large-for-gestational age, low Apgar scores, cesarean section, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Results. A total of 648 women were screened: 278 in the one-step group and 370 in the two-step group. The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group; 32.0% versus 10.3%. Baseline characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in both groups were comparable. However, mean birthweight was significantly higher among pregnancies with GDM diagnosed by the two-step approach (3204 ± 555 versus 3009 ± 666 g; p=0.022). Likewise, the rate of large-for-date tended to be higher in the two-step group, but was not significant. Conclusion. The one-step approach is associated with very high prevalence of GDM among Thai population, without clear evidence of better outcomes. Thus, this approach may not be appropriate for screening in a busy antenatal care clinic like our setting or other centers in developing countries.
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
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?
In Thailand, an increase in GDM prevalence from 22.2% to 32.76% was observed when changing from C&C criteria to NDGG criteria.
“In Thailand, an increase in the prevalence of GDM from 22.2% to 32.76% was observed when changing from the C&C criteria to the NDGG criteria.”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [229]
The Results (page unavailable) report 32.0% GDM prevalence with one-step screening versus 10.3% with two-step screening among Thai women, not 22.2% versus 32.76%. The Introduction identifies the compared criteria as IADPSG and ACOG, not C&C and NDGG. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Thailand, the most valuable screening test for GDM was the 100 g, two-hour OGTT.
“The researchers showed that the most valuable screening test in Thailand was the 100 g, two-hour OGTT [229].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [229]
The Methods describe the 100 g OGTT as part of a two-step approach, with measurements through three hours; the two-hour OGTT uses 75 g. The Discussion questions routine use of the 75 g one-step test in this Thai clinic, but does not identify a 100 g, two-hour OGTT as the most valuable test in Thailand. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
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
Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus
American Diabetes Association (2013) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc13-s067 · Cited by 2,245 · see citing works
Anna, V., van der Ploeg, H. P., Cheung, N. W., Huxley, R. R., & Bauman, A. E. (2008) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc08-1038 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
on behalf of the DALI Core Investigator group, Egan, A. M., Vellinga, A., Harreiter, J., Simmons, D., Desoye, G., Corcoy, R., Adelantado, J. M., Devlieger, R., Van Assche, A., et al. (2017) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-017-4353-9 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Jeppesen, C., Maindal, H. T., Kristensen, J. K., Ovesen, P. G., & Witte, D. R. (2017) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/1403494817736943 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- [1]American Diabetes Association Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2014 37 1 S81 S90 10.2337/dc14-S081 2-s2.0-84892659350 24357215 · DOI · Paper page
- [2]Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics Practice Bulletin No. 137: gestational diabetes mellitus Obstetrics and Gynecology 2013 122 406 416 23969827
- [3]Metzger B. E. Lowe L. P. Dyer A. R. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes New England Journal of Medicine 2008 358 19 1991 2002 10.1056/NEJMoa0707943 2-s2.0-43249096940 18463375 · DOI · Paper page
- [5]American College of Obstricians and Gynecologists Committee opinion no. 504: screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011 118 751 753 21860317
- [6]Vandorsten J. P. Dodson W. C. Espeland M. A. NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements 2013 29 1 1 31 23748438
- [8]Njete H. I. John B. Mlay P. Mahande M. J. Msuya S. E. Prevalence, predictors and challenges of gestational diabetes mellitus screening among pregnant women in northern Tanzania Tropical Medicine and International Health 2017 In Press 10.1111/tmi.13018 29178236 · DOI
- [10]Wei Y. Yang H. Zhu W. Hod M. Hadar E. Adverse pregnancy outcome among women with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus: a population-based multi-centric study in Beijing Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2017 30 2395 2397 10.1080/14767058.2016.1250257 2-s2.0-84994589391 27822972 · DOI
- [12]Dabelea D. Snell-Bergeon J. K. Hartsfield C. L. Bischoff K. J. Hamman R. F. McDuffie R. S. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) over time and by birth cohort: Kaiser Permanente of Colorado GDM Screening Program Diabetes Care 2005 28 579 584 10.2337/diacare.28.3.579 2-s2.0-14644401737 15735191 · DOI
- [13]Bardenheier B. H. Elixhauser A. Imperatore G. Variation in prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus among hospital discharges for obstetric delivery across 23 states in the United States Diabetes Care 2013 36 1209 1214 10.2337/dc12-0901 2-s2.0-84876793750 23248195 PMC3631849 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Harbinger of the Vicious Cycle of Diabetes
Alejandro, E. U., Mamerto, T. P., Chung, G., Villavieja, A., Gaus, N. L., Morgan, E., & Pineda-Cortel, M. R. B. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21145003 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Ethnic disparities in gestational diabetes
Yuen, L., Wong, V. W., & Simmons, D. (2018) · Current Diabetes Reports · doi:10.1007/s11892-018-1040-2 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century
Dłuski, D. F., Ruszała, M., Rudziński, G., Pożarowska, K., Brzuszkiewicz, K., & Leszczyńska-Gorzelak, B. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192315804 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Luewan, S., Bootchaingam, P., & Tongsong, T.
- Affiliations
- Chiang Mai University (TH)
- Corresponding author
- Tongsong, Theera
- Venue
- Obstetrics and Gynecology International
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 2018
- Pages
- 1-5
- ISSN
- 1687-9589 (ISSN-L)
- 1687-9597
- PMC
- PMC5822918
- OpenAlex
- W2788249272
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Obstetrics and Gynecology International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Greater South Information System
- Funders
- Chiang Mai University
- 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 › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- gestational diabetes mellitus, GDM screening, two-stage screening, GDM prevalence, birth weight, large for gestational age, pregnancy outcomes, Thai 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
