Cited by 73Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Prevalence of gestational diabetes according to commonly used data sources: an observational study

Open access
Lawrence, Robyn L., Wall, Clare R., Bloomfield, Frank H.·2019·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Abstract

Background: It is well recognized that prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) varies depending on the population studied and the diagnostic criteria used. The data source used also can lead to substantial differences in the reporting of GDM prevalence but is considered less frequently. Accurate estimation of GDM prevalence is important for service planning and evaluation, policy development, and research. We aimed to determine the prevalence of GDM in a cohort of New Zealand women using a variety of data sources and to evaluate the agreement between different data sources. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Growing Up in New Zealand Study, consisting of a cohort of 6822 pregnant women residing in a geographical area defined by three regional health boards in New Zealand. Prevalence of GDM was estimated using four commonly used data sources. Coded clinical data on diabetes status were collected from regional health boards and the Ministry of Health’s National Minimum Dataset, plasma glucose results were collected from laboratories servicing the recruitment catchment area and coded according to the New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes diagnostic criteria, and self-reported diabetes status collected via interview administered questionnaires. Agreement between data sources was calculated using the proportion of agreement with 95% confidence intervals for both a positive and negative diagnosis of GDM. Results: Prevalence of GDM combining data from all sources in the Growing Up in New Zealand cohort was 6.2%. Estimates varied from 3.8 to 6.9% depending on the data source. The proportion of agreement between data sources for presence of GDM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.65, 0.75). A third of women who had a diagnosis of GDM according to medical data reported having no diabetes in interview administered questionnaires. Conclusion: Prevalence of GDM varies considerably depending on the data source used. Health services need to be aware of this and to understand the limitations of local data sources to ensure service planning and evaluation, policy development and research are appropriate for the local prevalence. Improved communication of the diagnosis may assist women’s self-management of GDM.

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/s12884-019-2521-2

Cites

33 of 34 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?

  • The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in New Zealand has not been definitively understood, but latest studies assessed it at approximately 6% (5.7-6.2%).

    “The prevalence of GDM in New Zealand has not been definitively understood, or reported according to small studies performed in small catchment areas [23,24,25,26,27], but the latest studies assessed it at approximately 6% (5.7–6.2%).”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Background says New Zealand’s GDM prevalence was not definitively known and earlier reports came from small catchment-area studies. The Results report 6.2% for the Growing Up in New Zealand cohort, supporting the approximate 6% estimate, but the paper does not establish the claimed 5.7–6.2% range. The Discussion also cautions that the cohort data were collected about 10 years earlier and may not reflect current prevalence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 1

  1. [29]Statistics New Zealand. Report of the review of the measurement of ethnicity June 2004. Statistics New Zealand, Wellington; 2004. http://archive.stats.govt.nz/methods/classifications-and-standards/classification-related-stats-standards/ethnicity.aspx.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawrence, R. L., Wall, C. R., & Bloomfield, F. H.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Bloomfield, Frank H.
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2019-10-11
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
349-349
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2979825951
Cited by
73
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
11.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • New Zealand Ministry of Social Development
  • New Zealand Ministry of Health
  • Australian and New Zealand Society of Blood Transfusion
  • New Zealand Ministry of Justice
  • New Zealand Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs
  • New Zealand Ministry of Science Innovation
  • New Zealand Department of Labour
  • New Zealand Ministry of Women's Affairs
  • New Zealand Department of Corrections
  • New Zealand Families Commission
  • Te Puni Kōkiri
  • New Zealand Police
  • Sport New Zealand
  • Housing New Zealand Corporation
  • New Zealand Mental Health Commission
  • The University of Auckland
  • Auckland UniServices Limited
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, data source agreement, diagnostic criteria, medical records, Growing Up in New Zealand study, plasma glucose
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Glucose, Female, Humans, Laboratories, New Zealand, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Class, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Databases, Factual, Information Storage and Retrieval, Diabetes, Gestational, White People, Asian People, Young Adult, Self Report

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