Cited by 24Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Screening for Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Prutsky, Gabriela J., Domecq, Juan Pablo, Sundaresh, Vishnu, Elraiyah, Tarig, Nabhan, Mohammed, Prokop, Larry J., Vella, Adrian, Montori, Victor M. +1 more·2013·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

CONTEXT: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as any degree of hyperglycemia with first recognition during pregnancy. The optimal time to screen for GDM that would maximize the yield and benefits remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to appraise the evidence regarding screening for GDM (accuracy, correlation with adverse outcomes, and harms). DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid Medline, OVID EMBASE, OVID Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycInfo, and CINAHL through May 2011. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that enrolled pregnant woman who were evaluated using different GDM screening tests. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers working independently abstracted the data. RESULTS: We did not find any randomized controlled trials of GDM screening that measured feto-maternal outcomes. A 1-hour 50-g glucose challenge test with a cutoff point at 140 mg/dL was the most commonly used screening method. The results of this test were statistically associated with feto-maternal outcomes (P < .001), even though only 11% of individuals with a positive test (according to Carpenter and Coustan criteria) developed GDM. Positive Carpenter and Coustan criteria were associated with macrosomia (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9-3.1, P < .001) and gestational hypertension (OR = 1.7, CI = 1.3-2.1, P < .001). Positive National Diabetes Data Group criteria were also associated with macrosomia (OR = 3.2, CI = 2.3-4.4, P < .001) and gestational hypertension (OR = 2.1, CI = 1.6-2.8, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Indirect evidence supports the use of contemporary screening tests for GDM to identify pregnancies at increased risk of adverse feto-maternal outcomes. It also suggests that use of these tests will place some women under unnecessary treatment for 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 · 10.1210/jc.2013-2460

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Universal testing for diabetes in early pregnancy has a high rate of false-positive results.

    “We acknowledge that with universal testing for diabetes in early pregnancy, there will be a high rate of false-positive results (70)”
  • Abnormal screening test results are associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes.

    “A systematic review and meta-analysis (70) demonstrated that abnormal screening test results were associated with worse maternal and fetal outcomes.”
  • The yield and diagnostic accuracy of screening tests were overall modest in predicting future development of gestational diabetes.

    “The yield and diagnostic accuracy of screening tests were, overall, modest in predicting future development of gestational diabetes and clearly correlated with established risk factors.”
  • The studies described a statistically significant correlation between a positive screening test and the development of macrosomia and gestational hypertension.

    “The studies, however, described a statistically significant correlation between a positive screening test and the development of macrosomia and gestational hypertension.”
  • None of the studies directly compared the maternal and fetal outcomes of women who received screening versus women who did not receive screening.

    “None of the studies directly compared the maternal and fetal outcomes of women who received screening vs women who did not receive screening.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prutsky, G. J., Domecq, J. P., Sundaresh, V., Elraiyah, T., Nabhan, M., Prokop, L. J., Vella, A., Montori, V. M., & Murad, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (PE)
  • Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport (US)
Corresponding author
Murad, Mohammad Hassan
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2013-11
Volume
98
Issue
11
Pages
4311-4318
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2049192897
Cited by
24
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, GDM screening, glucose challenge test, Carpenter and Coustan criteria, National Diabetes Data Group criteria, macrosomia, gestational hypertension, maternal and fetal outcomes, screening accuracy, unnecessary treatment
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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