CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and Research

Change in prevalence of gestational diabetes and obstetric complications when applying IADPSG screening criteria in a Belgian French speaking University Hospital. A retrospective cohort study

Open access
Costa, Elena, Kirckpartick, Christine, Gerday, Colette, De Kempeneer, Aricia, Derisbourg, Sara, Vercoutere, An, Haumont, Sophie, Pintiaux, Axelle +1 more·2019·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
DOI 10.1186/s12884-019-2406-4PMC PMC6636062
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In April 2012 our institution chose to switch from a two- step criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) screening, to the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADSPG) criteria. This shift led to an increased prevalence of GDM in our pregnant population. We designed a study in order to estimate the magnitude of the increase in GDM prevalence before and after the switch in screening strategy. As a secondary objective we wanted to evaluate if there was a significant difference between the two periods in the percentage of maternal and neonatal complications such as gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD), primary cesarean section (pCS), preterm birth, large for gestational age (LGA) newborns, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, 5' Apgar score less than to 7 at birth, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) transfer and neonatal hypoglycemia. METHODS: We selected retrospectively 3496 patients who delivered between January 2009 and December 2011 who were screened with the two-step criteria (group A), and compared them to 2555 patients who delivered between January 2013 and December 2014 and who were screened with IADPSG criteria (Group B). We checked patients' electronic files to establish GDM status, baseline characteristics (age, body mass index, nationality, parity) and the presence of maternal and neonatal complications. RESULTS: GDM prevalence increased significantly from group A (3.4%; 95%CI 2.8-4.06%) to group B (16.28%; 95%CI 14.8 -17.7%). In group B there were significantly more non-Belgian and primiparous patients. There was no statistically significant difference in maternal and neonatal complications between the two groups, even after adjustment for nationality and parity. There was a non-significant reduction of the proportion of macrosomic and of LGA babies. CONCLUSIONS: In our population the introduction of IADPSG screening criteria has increased the prevalence of GDM without having a statistically significant impact on pregnancy outcomes.

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 · 10.1186/s12884-019-2406-4

Cites

2 of 2 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?

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: 22

  1. [1]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 7 539 553 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9136(199807)15:7<539::AID-DIA668>3.0.CO;2-S 9686693 · DOI
  2. [2]Crowther CA Hiller JE Moss JR McPhee AJ Jeffries WS Robinson JS Group ACISiPWAT Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes N Engl J Med 2005 352 24 2477 2486 10.1056/NEJMoa042973 15951574 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Damm P Future risk of diabetes in mother and child after gestational diabetes mellitus Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009 104 Suppl 1 S25 S26 10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.11.025 19150058 · DOI
  4. [4]Casey BM Lucas MJ Mcintire DD Leveno KJ Pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes compared with the general obstetric population Obstet Gynecol 1997 90 6 869 873 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00542-5 9397092 · DOI
  5. [5]Metzger BE Lowe LP Dyer AR Trimble ER Chaovarindr U Coustan DR Hadden DR McCance DR Hod M McIntyre HD Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes N Engl J Med 2008 358 19 1991 2002 10.1056/NEJMoa0707943 18463375 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Catalano PM McIntyre HD Cruickshank JK McCance DR Dyer AR Metzger BE Lowe LP Trimble ER Coustan DR Hadden DR The hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study: associations of GDM and obesity with pregnancy outcomes Diabetes Care 2012 35 4 780 786 10.2337/dc11-1790 22357187 PMC3308300 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Gerome JM Bucher LKM Dogbey G Effects of implementing International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Gestational Diabetes Screening on pregnancy outcomes at a small community teaching hospital Clin Diabetes 2017 35 2 84 89 10.2337/cd16-0031 28442822 PMC5391816 · DOI
  8. [9]Duran A Sáenz S Torrejón MJ Bordiú E Del Valle L Galindo M Perez N Herraiz MA Izquierdo N Rubio MA Introduction of IADPSG criteria for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus results in improved pregnancy outcomes at a lower cost in a large cohort of pregnant women: the St. Carlos gestational diabetes study Diabetes Care 2014 37 9 2442 2450 10.2337/dc14-0179 24947793 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [10]Kong JM Lim K Thompson DM Evaluation of the International Association of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group new criteria: gestational diabetes project Can J Diabetes 2015 39 2 128 132 10.1016/j.jcjd.2014.09.007 25523181 · DOI
  10. [11]Oriot P Selvais P Radikov J Jacobs JL Gilleman U Loumaye R Fernandez C Assessing the incidence of gestational diabetes and neonatal outcomes using the IADPSG guidelines in comparison with the carpenter and Coustan criteria in a Belgian general hospital Acta Clin Belg 2014 69 1 8 11 10.1179/0001551213Z.0000000004 24635392 · DOI
  11. [12]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 B167 9704245
  12. [13]Vanderijst J Debieve F Ducet F Emonts P e dépistage et critères diagnostiques du diabète gestationnel. Propositions du GGOLFB Rev Med Brux 2012 33 97 104 22812055
  13. [15]Clopper C Pearson ES The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial Biometrika 1934 26 404 413 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404 · DOI
  14. [16]Mellitus ECotDaCoD Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2003 26 Suppl 1 S5 20 12502614
  15. [18]Khalifeh A, Eckler R, Felder L, Saccone G, Caissutti C, Berghella V. One-step versus two-step diagnostic testing for gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;13:1–6. 29985079
  16. [19]Minsart AF Lescrainier JP Vokaer A Selective versus universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: an evaluation of Naylor's model Gynecol Obstet Investig 2009 68 3 154 159 10.1159/000229022 19628949 · DOI
  17. [20]Waters TP Dyer AR Scholtens DM Dooley SL Herer E Lowe LP Oats JJ Persson B Sacks DA Metzger BE Maternal and neonatal morbidity for women who would be added to the diagnosis of GDM using IADPSG criteria: a secondary analysis of the hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study Diabetes Care 2016 39 12 2204 2210 10.2337/dc16-1194 27634392 PMC5127228 · DOI · Paper page
  18. [21]Lindqvist M Persson M Lindkvist M Mogren I No consensus on gestational diabetes mellitus screening regimes in Sweden: pregnancy outcomes in relation to different screening regimes 2011 to 2012, a cross-sectional study BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014 14 185 10.1186/1471-2393-14-185 24884711 PMC4055242 · DOI
  19. [22]Mayo K Melamed N Vandenberghe H Berger H The impact of adoption of the international association of diabetes in pregnancy study group criteria for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015 212 2 224.e221 224.e229 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.027 25173183 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [23]Organization WH: WHO Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy 2013 24199271
  21. [24]Weile LK Kahn JG Marseille E Jensen DM Damm P Lohse N Global cost-effectiveness of GDM screening and management: current knowledge and future needs Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2015 29 2 206 224 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.06.009 25225056 · DOI
  22. [25]Parsons J Sparrow K Ismail K Hunt K Rogers H Forbes A Experiences of gestational diabetes and gestational diabetes care: a focus group and interview study BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018 18 1 25 10.1186/s12884-018-1657-9 29325518 PMC5765597 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Costa, E., Kirckpartick, C., Gerday, C., De Kempeneer, A., Derisbourg, S., Vercoutere, A., Haumont, S., Pintiaux, A., & Daelemans, C.
Affiliations
Erasmus Hospital (BE)
Corresponding author
Costa, Elena
ORCID
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-07-16
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
249-249
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12884-019-2406-4
PMC
PMC6636062
OpenAlex
W2956291088
Cited by
15
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Fonds Erasme pour la recherche médicale
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 prevalence, pregnancy complications, neonatal complications, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, primary cesarean section, preterm birth, large for gestational age, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, neonatal intensive care unit transfer, neonatal hypoglycemia
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Screening Programs, Adult, Belgium, Female, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Newborn, Diseases, Obstetric Labor Complications, Male, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Prenatal Care, Retrospective Studies, Prevalence, 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