Cited by 47Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Fourfold increase in prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus after adoption of the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria

Huhn, Evelyn A., Massaro, Nadine, Streckeisen, Simone, Manegold-Brauer, Gwendolin, Schoetzau, Andreas, Schulzke, Sven M., Winzeler, Bettina, Hoesli, Irene +1 more·2017·Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Abstract

Background: The aim was to evaluate the influence of the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines for screening of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on GDM prevalence in a cohort from a Swiss tertiary hospital. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study involving all pregnant women who were screened for GDM between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. From 2008 until 2010 (period 1), a two-step approach with 1-h 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) was used, followed by fasting, 1- and 2-h glucose measurements after a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in case of a positive GCT. From 2010 until 2013 (period 2), all pregnant women were tested with a one-step 75 g OGTT according to new IADPSG guidelines. In both periods, women with risk factors could be screened directly with a 75 g OGTT in early pregnancy. Results: Overall, 647 women were eligible for the study in period 1 and 720 in period 2. The introduction of the IADPSG criteria resulted in an absolute increase of GDM prevalence of 8.5% (3.3% in period 1 to 11.8% in period 2). Conclusions: The adoption of the IADPSG criteria resulted in a considerable increase in GDM diagnosis in our Swiss cohort. Further studies are needed to investigate if the screening is cost effective and if treatment of our additionally diagnosed GDM mothers might improve short-term as well as long-term outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/jpm-2016-0099

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 Switzerland, Huhn et al. found GDM prevalence increased from 3.3% before changing criteria to 11.8% after.

    “The results showed an enormous increase in the GDM prevalence rate from, 3.3% in period 1 to 11.8% in period 2 [132].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huhn, E. A., Massaro, N., Streckeisen, S., Manegold-Brauer, G., Schoetzau, A., Schulzke, S. M., Winzeler, B., Hoesli, I., & Lapaire, O.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • Kantonsspital Baselland (CH)
  • University of Basel (CH)
Corresponding author
Huhn, Evelyn A.
Venue
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
45
Issue
3
Pages
359-366
ISSN
  • 0300-5577 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-3997
OpenAlex
W2491499742
Cited by
47
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
8.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Perinatal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RERO DOC (Universität Bern) (submittedVersion)
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, IADPSG criteria, GDM screening, prevalence, oral glucose tolerance test, glucose challenge test, diagnostic criteria revision, pregnant women, early pregnancy screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Male, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Switzerland, Cohort Studies, Body Mass Index, Prevalence, Diabetes, Gestational, Practice 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