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

Identifying women with gestational diabetes based on maternal characteristics: an analysis of four Norwegian prospective studies

Open access
Rai, Anam Shakil, Sletner, Line, Jenum, Anne Karen, Øverby, Nina Cecilie, Stafne, Signe Nilssen, Lekva, Tove, Pripp, Are Hugo, Sagedal, Linda Reme·2021·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Abstract

Background: There is still no worldwide agreement on the best diagnostic thresholds to define gestational diabetes (GDM) or the optimal approach for identifying women with GDM. Should all pregnant women perform an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) or can easily available maternal characteristics, such as age, BMI and ethnicity, indicate which women to test? The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of GDM by three diagnostic criteria and the predictive accuracy of commonly used risk factors. Methods: We merged data from four Norwegian cohorts (2002–2013), encompassing 2981 women with complete results from a universally offered OGTT. Prevalences were estimated based on the following diagnostic criteria: 1999 WHO (fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥7.0 or 2-h glucose ≥7.8 mmol/L), 2013 WHO (FPG ≥5.1 or 2-h glucose ≥8.5 mmol/L), and 2017 Norwegian (FPG ≥5.3 or 2-h glucose ≥9 mmol/L). Multiple logistic regression models examined associations between GDM and maternal factors. We applied the 2013 WHO and 2017 Norwegian criteria to evaluate the performance of different thresholds of age and BMI. Results: The prevalence of GDM was 10.7, 16.9 and 10.3%, applying the 1999 WHO, 2013 WHO, and the 2017 Norwegian criteria, respectively, but was higher for women with non-European background when compared to European women (14.5 vs 10.2%, 37.7 vs 13.8% and 27.0 vs 7.8%). While advancing age and elevated BMI increased the risk of GDM, no risk factors, isolated or in combination, could identify more than 80% of women with GDM by the latter two diagnostic criteria, unless at least 70–80% of women were offered an OGTT. Using the 2017 Norwegian criteria, the combination “age≥25 years or BMI≥25 kg/m 2” achieved the highest sensitivity (96.5%) with an OGTT required for 93% of European women. The predictive accuracy of risk factors for identifying GDM was even lower for non-European women. Conclusions: The prevalence of GDM was similar using the 1999 WHO and 2017 Norwegian criteria, but substantially higher with the 2013 WHO criteria, in particular for ethnic non-European women. Using clinical risk factors such as age and BMI is a poor pre-diagnostic screening method, as this approach failed to identify a substantial proportion of women with GDM unless at least 70–80% were tested.

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/s12884-021-04086-9

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • In Norway, Rai et al. assessed GDM prevalence at 10.3% (WHO 1999), 10.7% (Norwegian), and 16.9% (IADPSG/WHO 2013).

    “Using this three ways, Rai et al. assessed GDM prevalence at 10.3% (WHO 1999); 10.7% (Norwegian); and 16.9% (IADPSG/WHO2013) [176].”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [176]

    The Discussion reports 16.9% under the 2013 WHO criteria, as claimed. It assigns 10.7% to the 1999 WHO criteria and 10.3% to the 2017 Norwegian criteria; the citing sentence reverses those two figures. (LLM, conf=0.94)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Norway, three ways to diagnose GDM (WHO 1999, AIDPSG/WHO 2013, and Norwegian guidelines) were used for the last 20 years.

    “For the last 20 years, three ways to diagnose GDM (i.e., the WHO 1999; the AIDPSG/WHO 2013 and the Norwegian guidelines) were used.”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [176]

    The Background says the 1999 WHO criteria were used in Norway until 2017, and the Methods say the study applied the 1999 WHO, 2013 WHO, and 2017 Norwegian criteria. But the Methods specify that diagnoses during data collection used the 1999 WHO criteria; the other two were applied for this study. The paper therefore does not support saying that all three were used to diagnose GDM in Norway over the last 20 years. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    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: 24

  1. [1]American Diabetes Association 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical Care in Diabetes—2018 Diabetes Care 2018 41 Supplement 1 S13 S27 10.2337/dc18-S002 29222373 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [3]Crowther CA Hiller JE Moss JR McPhee AJ Jeffries WS Robinson JS Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes New Engl J Med 2005 352 24 2477 2486 10.1056/NEJMoa042973 15951574 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [5]Metzger BE Lowe LP Dyer AR Trimble ER Chaovarindr U Coustan DR Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes N Engl J Med 2008 358 19 1991 2002 10.1056/NEJMoa0707943 18463375 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [6]Cundy T Ackermann E Ryan EA Gestational diabetes: new criteria may triple the prevalence but effect on outcomes is unclear BMJ. 2014 348 mar11 6 g1567 10.1136/bmj.g1567 24618099 · DOI
  5. [7]Marozio L, Picardo E, Filippini C, Mainolfi E, Berchialla P, Cavallo F, et al. Maternal age over 40 years and pregnancy outcome: a hospital-based survey. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(10):1602–8. 10.1080/14767058.2017.1410793. 29216770 · DOI
  6. [8]Farrar D Simmonds M Bryant M Lawlor DA Dunne F Tuffnell D Sheldon TA Risk factor screening to identify women requiring oral glucose tolerance testing to diagnose gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis and analysis of two pregnancy cohorts PLoS One 2017 12 4 e0175288 10.1371/journal.pone.0175288 28384264 PMC5383279 · DOI
  7. [9]Jenum AK Sletner L Voldner N Vangen S Mørkrid K Andersen LF Nakstad B Skrivarhaug T Rognerud-Jensen OH Roald B Birkeland KI The STORK Groruddalen research programme: a population-based cohort study of gestational diabetes, physical activity, and obesity in pregnancy in a multiethnic population. Rationale, methods, study population, and participation rates Scand J Public Health 2010 38 5 Suppl 60 70 10.1177/1403494810378921 21062840 · DOI
  8. [10]Frøslie KF Røislien J Qvigstad E Godang K Bollerslev J Voldner N Shape information from glucose curves: functional data analysis compared with traditional summary measures BMC Med Res Methodol 2013 13 6 10.1186/1471-2288-13-6 23327294 PMC3570313 · DOI
  9. [11]Sagedal LR Øverby NC Lohne-Seiler H Bere E Torstveit MK Henriksen T Vistad I Study protocol: fit for delivery - can a lifestyle intervention in pregnancy result in measurable health benefits for mothers and newborns? A randomized controlled trial BMC Public Health 2013 13 1 132 10.1186/1471-2458-13-132 23406306 PMC3577450 · DOI
  10. [12]Stafne SN Salvesen KÅ Romundstad PR Eggebø TM Carlsen SM Mørkved S Regular exercise during pregnancy to prevent gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial Obstet Gynecol 2012 119 1 29 36 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182393f86 22183208 · DOI
  11. [14]Steyerberg EW Clinical prediction models 2009 New York Springer-Verlag New York
  12. [15]Guariguata L Linnenkamp U Beagley J Whiting DR Cho NH Global estimates of the prevalence of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014 103 2 176 185 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.11.003 24300020 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [18]Pintaudi B Di Vieste G Corrado F Lucisano G Pellegrini F Giunta L Improvement of selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes through a more accurate definition of high-risk groups Eur J Endocrinol 2014 170 1 87 93 10.1530/EJE-13-0759 24114434 · DOI
  14. [19]Benhalima K Damm P Van Assche A Mathieu C Devlieger R Mahmood T Screening for gestational diabetes in Europe: where do we stand and how to move forward?: a scientific paper commissioned by the European board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016 201 192 196 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.04.002 27105781 · DOI
  15. [20]Hod M Kapur A Sacks DA Hadar E Agarwal M Di Renzo GC The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) initiative on gestational diabetes mellitus: a pragmatic guide for diagnosis, management, and care Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015 131 Suppl 3 S173 S211 10.1016/S0020-7292(15)30033-3 29644654 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [21]Matthews TJ Hamilton BE First births to older women continue to rise NCHS Data Brief 2014 152 1 8 24813228
  17. [22]Zhou Q Wang Q Shen H Zhang Y Zhang S Li X Prevalence of diabetes and regional differences in Chinese women planning pregnancy: a Nationwide population-based cross-sectional study Diabetes Care 2017 40 2 e16 ee8 10.2337/dc16-2188 27899491 · DOI
  18. [23]Cosson E Cussac-Pillegand C Benbara A Pharisien I Jaber Y Banu I Nguyen MT Valensi P Carbillon L The diagnostic and prognostic performance of a selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus according to ethnicity in Europe J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014 99 3 996 1005 10.1210/jc.2013-3383 24423342 · DOI
  19. [24]Avalos GE Owens LA Dunne F Collaborators AD Applying current screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus to a European population: is it time for change? Diabetes Care 2013 36 10 3040 3044 10.2337/dc12-2669 23757431 PMC3781510 · DOI
  20. [25]Arora D Arora R Sangthong S Leelaporn W Sangratanathongchai J Universal screening of gestational diabetes mellitus: prevalence and diagnostic value of clinical risk factors J Med Assoc Thail 2013 96 3 266 271 23539927
  21. [26]Landon MB Spong CY Thom E Carpenter MW Ramin SM Casey B Wapner RJ Varner MW Rouse DJ Thorp JM Sciscione A Catalano P Harper M Saade G Lain KY Sorokin Y Peaceman AM Tolosa JE Anderson GB A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes Obstet Anesth Dig 2010 30 4 232 10.1097/01.aoa.0000389610.71133.ee · DOI
  22. [28]Xin Y Davies A McCombie L Briggs A Messow CM Grieve E Leslie WS Taylor R Lean MEJ Within-trial cost and 1-year cost-effectiveness of the DiRECT/counterweight-plus weight-management programme to achieve remission of type 2 diabetes Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019 7 3 169 172 10.1016/S2213-8587(18)30346-2 30581081 PMC6383752 · DOI · Paper page
  23. [29]Aroda VR Christophi CA Edelstein SL Zhang P Herman WH Barrett-Connor E Delahanty LM Montez MG Ackermann RT Zhuo X Knowler WC Ratner RE for the Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group The effect of lifestyle intervention and metformin on preventing or delaying diabetes among women with and without gestational diabetes: the diabetes prevention program outcomes study 10-year follow-up J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015 100 4 1646 1653 10.1210/jc.2014-3761 25706240 PMC4399293 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [30]Bao W Tobias DK Bowers K Chavarro J Vaag A Grunnet LG Strøm M Mills J Liu A Kiely M Zhang C Physical activity and sedentary behaviors associated with risk of progression from gestational diabetes mellitus to type 2 diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study JAMA Intern Med 2014 174 7 1047 1055 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1795 24841449 PMC4209161 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rai, A. S., Sletner, L., Jenum, A. K., Øverby, N. C., Stafne, S. N., Lekva, T., Pripp, A. H., & Sagedal, L. R.
Affiliations
  • Sørlandet Sykehus (NO)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • University of Agder (NO)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Corresponding author
Rai, Anam Shakil
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published
2021-09-08
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
615-615
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3156635732
Cited by
15
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.95
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)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Funders
  • Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet
  • Universitetet i Bergen
  • Universitetet i Oslo
  • Helse Sør-Øst RHF
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, diagnostic criteria, oral glucose tolerance test, risk factors, maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, diagnostic sensitivity, prevalence, WHO criteria, prenatal screening, pregnancy cohort, Norwegian women, fasting blood glucose, prediction accuracy, maternal characteristics, cost-effectiveness of screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Diagnostic Tests, Routine, Ethnicity, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Norway, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, World Health Organization, Body Mass Index, 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