Fourfold increase in prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus after adoption of the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [132]
Cites
Effect of Treatment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Pregnancy Outcomes
Crowther, C. A., Hiller, J. E., Moss, J. R., McPhee, A. J., Jeffries, W. S., & Robinson, J. S. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa042973 · Cited by 3,159 · see citing works
A Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Treatment for Mild Gestational Diabetes
Landon, M. B., Spong, C. Y., Thom, E., Carpenter, M. W., Ramin, S. M., Casey, B., Wapner, R. J., Varner, M. W., Rouse, D. J., Thorp, J. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0902430 · Cited by 2,122 · see citing works
(2014) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2013.10.012 · Cited by 914 · see citing works
Werner, E. F., Pettker, C. M., Zuckerwise, L., Reel, M., Funai, E. F., Henderson, J., & Thung, S. F. (2012) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc11-1643 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis
Ye, W., Luo, C., Huang, J., Li, C., Liu, Z., & Liu, F. (2022) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-067946 · Cited by 1,073 · see citing works
Comparison of glyburide and insulin in the management of gestational diabetes: a meta-analysis
Song, R., Chen, L., Chen, Y., Si, X., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Irwin, D. M., & Feng, W. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182488 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century
Dłuski, D. F., Ruszała, M., Rudziński, G., Pożarowska, K., Brzuszkiewicz, K., & Leszczyńska-Gorzelak, B. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192315804 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Bomba-Opoń, D. A., Godek, B., Czekaj, L., Huras, H., Jakubiec-Wisniewska, K., Janowiec, K., Leszczynska-Gorzelak, B., Slodzinska, M., Zimmer, M., Bek, W., et al. (2022) · Ginekologia Polska · doi:10.5603/gp.a2021.0257 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- 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
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- 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