Cited by 50Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementNeonatal Health and Biochemistry

Impact of Implementing Preanalytical Laboratory Standards on the Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Observational Study

Open access
Daly, Niamh, Flynn, Iseult, Carroll, Ciara, Farren, Maria, McKeating, Aoife, Turner, Michael J·2016·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, but risk is reduced with identification and early treatment. Glucose measurements are affected by preanalytical sample handling, such as temperature of storage, phlebotomy–analysis interval, and use of a glycolysis inhibitor. We evaluated glucose concentrations and the incidence of GDM after strict implementation of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) preanalytical guidelines, compared with usual hospital conditions. METHODS: Women screened selectively for GDM at 24–32 weeks' gestation were recruited at their convenience before a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Paired samples were taken: the first sample followed ADA recommendations and was transferred to the laboratory on an iced slurry for immediate separation and analysis (research conditions), and the second sample was not placed on ice and was transferred according to hospital practice (usual conditions). RESULTS: Of samples from 155 women, the mean fasting, 1-h, and 2-h results were 90.0 (12.6) mg/dL [5.0 (0.7) mmol/L], 142.2 (43.2) mg/dL [7.9 (2.4) mmol/L], and 102.6 (32.4) mg/dL [5.7 (1.8) mmol/L], respectively, under research conditions, and 81 (12.6) mg/dL [4.5 (0.7) mmol/L], 133.2 (41.4) mg/dL [7.4 (2.3) mmol/L], and 99 (32.4) mg/dL [5.5 (1.8) mmol/L] under usual conditions (all P < 0.0001). GDM was diagnosed in 38.1% (n = 59) under research conditions and 14.2% (n = 22) under usual conditions (P < 0.0001). The phlebotomy–analysis interval for the fasting, 1-h, and 2-h samples was 20 (9), 17 (10), and 17 (9) min under research conditions and 162 (19), 95 (23), and 32 (19) min under usual conditions (all P < 0.0001). All cases of GDM were diagnosed on fasting or 1-h samples; the 2-h test diagnosed no additional cases. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ADA preanalytical glucose sample handling recommendations resulted in higher mean glucose concentrations and 2.7-fold increased detection of GDM compared with usual hospital practices.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2015.247478

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Comparison of glucose measured in samples collected in sodium fluoride-containing tubes kept in an ice-water slurry, as recommended, with those kept at room temperature increased the rate of diagnosis of GDM by 2.7-fold, entirely due to control of glycolysis.

    “For example, comparison of glucose measured in samples collected in sodium fluoride-containing tubes kept in an ice-water slurry, as recommended (109), with those kept at room temperature increased the rate of diagnosis of GDM by 2.7-fold (277), entirely due to control of glycolysis.”

    From Guidelines and Recommendations for Laboratory Analysis in the Diagnosis and Management of Diabetes Mellitus (2023) · cites this paper as [277]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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. [9]9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24199271 (Accessed October 2014).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Daly, N., Flynn, I., Carroll, C., Farren, M., McKeating, A., & Turner, M. J.
Affiliations
University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Daly, Niamh
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2016-02-01
Volume
62
Issue
2
Pages
387-391
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2255530717
Cited by
50
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal Health and Biochemistry
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, pre-analytical variables, oral glucose tolerance test, sample storage temperature, glycolysis inhibitors, glucose measurement accuracy, GDM diagnosis, American Diabetes Association guidelines, laboratory quality improvement, adverse pregnancy outcomes, glycolysis inhibition
MeSH terms
Blood Specimen Collection, Female, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Diabetes, Gestational, Guidelines as Topic

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