CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Universal versus selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus among antenatal clinic attendees in Abakaliki: using the one-step 75 gram oral glucose tolerance test

Open access
Nwali, Silas Alegu, Onoh, Robinson Chukwudi, Dimejesi, Ikechukwu Bo, Obi, Vitus Okwuchukwu, Jombo, Sunday Emmanuel, Edenya, Oghenevwogaga Obukohwo·2021·BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
DOI 10.1186/s12884-021-04168-8PMC PMC8555289
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Aim: To compare universal screening with selective risk factor based screening for GDM, using the one-step 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Materials and method: A cross-sectional, comparison between universal and selective risk factor based screening for GDM, among 400 antenatal care clients at Alex-Ekwueme Federal University Teaching Hospital Abakaliki (AE-FUTHA). All the participants had 75 g OGTT at 24–28 weeks of gestation and risk factor screening for GDM. All 400 participants formed the universal group while participants with one or more of the considered risk factors formed the selective risk factor group. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20. Statistical comparison was done using t- test for continuous variables. Logistics regression was used to determine the level of associations of the independent predictors for hyperglycemia. Level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: The point prevalence of GDM using universal and selective screening were 11.51 and 7.93% respectively, giving a selective screening miss rate of 31.11%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 73.58, 48.82, 19.12 and 92.51% respectively for the selective risk factor based screening compared to universal screening. On multivariate analysis; age ≥ 35 years, weight ≥ 90 kg, history of previous GDM and hypertension were significantly related to the development of hyperglycemia. Conclusion: Selective risk factor based screening missed 31.11% of patients with GDM when compare to Universal screening with one step 75 g OGTT. Universal screening for GDM using the one step 75 g OGTT is recommended for pregnant women and more studies are needed to compare pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women diagnosed with GDM with and without risk factors.

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/s12884-021-04168-8

Cites

3 of 3 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 Nigeria, the gestational diabetes mellitus incidence was higher with universal screening (11.51%) than with selective screening (7.93%), with a miss rate of 31.11% for selective screening.

    “The results showed that the GDM incidence was higher with the universal screening (11.51%) than for the selective screening (7.93%), which provided a miss rate of 31.11%.”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [39]

    The Results report 11.51% with universal screening, 7.93% with selective screening, and a 31.11% selective-screening miss rate. The paper calls these figures point prevalence, not incidence; it does not measure new cases over time. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Nigeria, hyperglycemia was positively correlated with previous history of gestational diabetes mellitus and hypertension, weight ≥90 kg, and age ≥35 years.

    “They also found positive correlations between hyperglycemia and previous history of GDM and hypertension, weight ≥ 90 kg, and age ≥ 35 years [39].”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [39]

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: 26

  1. [1]Garrison A Screening, diagnosis and Management of Gestational Diaetes Mellitus Am Fam Physician 2015 91 7 460 467 25884746
  2. [3]Macaulay S, Dunger DB, Norris SA. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Africa: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(6):e97871. 10.1371/journal.pone.0097871. PMC4043667 24892280 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]Schiavone M Putoto G Laterza F Pizzol D Gestational diabetes: an overview with attention for developing countries Endo Reg 2016 50 2 62 71 10.1515/enr-2016-0010 27560638 · DOI
  4. [6]Murphy A, Janzen C, Strelow SL, Green Spoon JS, Palmer SM. Diabetes Mellitus in Pregnancy. In: Current Diagnosis and Treatment, Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 11th edition. DeCherney AH, Nathan L, Laufer N, Roman AS (eds), McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York. 2013: 509–518.
  5. [7]Benhalima K Devlieger R Van Assche A Screening and Management of Gestational Diabetes Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2015 29 3 339 349 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.07.026 25457858 · DOI
  6. [8]Kamanu CI Onwere S Chigbu B Aluka C Okoro O Fetal Macrosomia in African women: a study of 249 cases Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009 279 857 861 10.1007/s00404-008-0780-7 19018549 · DOI
  7. [9]Adegbola O Ajayi GO Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in Nigerian pregnant women using fifty-gram Oral glucose challenge test West Afr J Med 2008 27 139 143 19256316
  8. [10]Anzaku AS Musa J Prevalence and associated risk factors for gestational diabetes in Jos, north-central Nigeria Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013 2875 859 863 10.1007/s00404-012-2649-z 23224650 · DOI
  9. [11]Kuti MA Abbiyesuku FM Akinlade KS Akinosun OM Adedapo KS Oral glucose tolerance testing outcomes among women at high risk for gestational diabetes mellitus J ClinPathol 2011 64 718 721 21606228
  10. [12]Nielsen KK, de Courten M, Kapur A. The urgent need for universally applicable simple screening procedures and diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus-lessons from projects funded by the World Diabetes Foundation Glob Health Action. 2012, 5: 17277 - 10.3402/gha.v5i0.17277 PMC3409336 22855644 · DOI
  11. [13]Jao J Wong M Van Dyke RB Geffner M Nshom E Palmer D Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in both HIV-infected and –uninfected pregnant women in Cameroon Diabetes Care 2013 36 9 e141 e142 10.2337/dc13-0968 23970721 PMC3747884 · DOI
  12. [15]Nilofer AR Raju VS Dakshayini BR Zaki SA Screening in high-risk group of gestational diabetes mellitus with its maternal and fetal outcomes Indian J EndocrMetab 2012 16 S74 S78 10.4103/2230-8210.94268 PMC3354928 22701851 · DOI
  13. [16]Adam S Rheeder P Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in a south African population: prevalence, comparison of diagnostic criteria and the role of risk factors S Afr Med J 2017 107 6 523 527 10.7196/SAMJ.2017.v107i6.12043 28604326 · DOI
  14. [17]Popova PV Grineva EN Gerasimov AS Kravchuk EN Ryazantseva EM Shelepova ES The new combination of risk factors determining a high risk for GDM Minerva Endocrinol 2015 40 4 239 247 25288096
  15. [18]Popova P Tkachuk A Dronova A Gerasimov A Kravchuk E Bolshakova M Fasting Glycemia at the first prenatal visit and pregnancy outcomes in Russian women Minerva Endocrinol 2016 41 4 477 485 27600641
  16. [19]Najimudeen M Sachchithanantham K An appraisal of screening methods for gestational diabetes mellitus British J Med Med Res 2014 4 15 2853 2865 10.9734/BJMMR/2014/6166 · DOI
  17. [20]Moses RG Cefalu WT Considerations in the Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: “you are what your mother ate!” Diabetes Care 2016 39 13 15 10.2337/dci15-0030 26696656 PMC4822404 · DOI
  18. [21]American Diabetes Association Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Sec. 2. In Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2016 Diabetes Care 2016 39 Suppl. 1 S13 S22 27555625
  19. [22]HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes N Engl J Med 2008 358 1991 2002 10.1056/NEJMoa0707943 18463375 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [24]Farrar D Fairley L Wright J Tuffnell D Whitelaw D Lawlor DA Evaluation of the impact of universal testing for gestational diabetes mellitus on maternal and neonatal health outcomes: a retrospective analysis BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014 14 317 10.1186/1471-2393-14-317 25199524 PMC4167281 · DOI
  21. [25]Cosson E Benbara A Pharisien I Nguyen MT Revaux A Lormeau B Diagnostic and prognostic performances over 9 years of a selective screening strategy for gestational diabetes mellitus in a cohort of 18,775 subjects Diabetes Care 2013 36 598 603 10.2337/dc12-1428 23150287 PMC3579341 · DOI
  22. [26]Hanson MA Bardsley A De-Regil LM Moore SE Oken E Poston L The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Recommendations on Adolescent, Preconception, and Maternal Nutrition: “Think Nutrition First.” Int J Gynecol Obstet 2015 131 Suppl 4 S213 S254 10.1016/S0020-7292(15)30034-5 26433230 · DOI
  23. [28]Agarwal MM Gestational diabetes mellitus: an update on the current international diagnostic criteria World J Diabetes 2015 6 6 782 791 10.4239/wjd.v6.i6.782 26131321 PMC4478575 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [29]Charan J, Biswas T. How to calculate sample size for different study design in medical research? IJPSYM. 2013;35(2):121–6. PMC3775042 24049221
  25. [30]Nwaokoro JC Emerole CO Ibe SNO Amadi AN Dozie INS Risk factors associated with gestational diabetes among pregnant women in Owerri municipal council, Southeastern Nigeria Asian J Med Sci 2014 5 39 46 10.3126/ajms.v5i1.8302 · DOI
  26. [32]Idris N, CheHatikah CH, Murizah MZ, Rushdan MN. Universal versus selective screening for detection of gestational dabetic mellitus ina Malaysian population. Malaysian Fam Phys. 2009;4(2&3):83–7. PMC4267044 25606169

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nwali, S. A., Onoh, R. C., Dimejesi, I. B., Obi, V. O., Jombo, S. E., & Edenya, O. O.
Affiliations
Federal Teaching Hospital Abakaliki (NG)
Corresponding author
Nwali, Silas Alegu
ORCID
Venue
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-10-29
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
735-735
ISSN
1471-2393 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12884-021-04168-8
PMC
PMC8555289
OpenAlex
W3209978598
Cited by
18
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, universal screening, prenatal care, hyperglycemia, screening sensitivity and specificity, risk factors for gestational diabetes, maternal age, maternal weight, previous gestational diabetes, hypertension in pregnancy
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Nigeria, Pregnancy, Prenatal Care, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, 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