The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diabetes Mellitus After GDM
Abstract
The impact of factors that influence diabetes mellitus (DM) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) incidence rates among former gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients undermine attempts at interstudy comparisons. The recommended diagnostic standards for GDM by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) are the O'Sullivan and Mahan criteria and the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for IGT, which result in prevalence rates of 2.5 and 7.2%, respectively, when applied to 752 unselected pregnant women. In applying the O'Sullivan and Mahan criteria, the current open-ended definition of GDM without rules either to exclude overt diabetes uncovered by pregnancy or to require a return to a normal OGTT after pregnancy is shown to be a major source of differences in subsequent incidence rates of diabetes. For subsequent nonpregnant diagnoses, the differences between WHO and National Diabetes Data Group criteria and the allowable modifications within each of the diagnostic standards all result in different incidence rates of diabetes. Review of 12 worldwide studies of diabetes among former GDM patients indicated a wide range of incidence rates, from 19 to 87% for combined DM and IGT and 6 to 62% for DM. In applying WHO DM criteria to GDM patients and control subjects, the excess risk of diabetes among GDM patients was 18% in Copenhagen and 30.9% in Boston, MA. The potential impact of varying observation periods within studies was seen when the application of an actuarial method added a further 50% to the Boston incidence rates of both GDM patients and control subjects. Although the variability in diabetes incidence rates is wide, there is broad general agreement on the predictive nature of gestational blood glucose levels.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus
The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus (2003) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.26.2007.s5 · Cited by 2,689
Gestational Diabetes and the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes
Kim, C., Newton, K. M., & Knopp, R. H. (2002) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.25.10.1862 · Cited by 2,276
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406
Ratner, R. E., Christophi, C. A., Metzger, B. E., Dabelea, D., Bennett, P. H., Pi-Sunyer, X., Fowler, S., Kahn, S. E., & The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (2008) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2008-0772 · Cited by 867
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Risks and Management during and after Pregnancy
Buchanan, T. A., Xiang, A. H., & Page, K. A. (2012) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/nrendo.2012.96 · Cited by 718
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Sullivan, J. B.
- Venue
- Diabetes
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1991-12-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- Supplement_2
- Pages
- 131-135
- ISSN
- 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-327X
- OpenAlex
- W2169788983
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Diabetes Mellitus After GDM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diab.40.2.s131
- The paper
- O'Sullivan, J. B. (1991). Diabetes Mellitus After GDM. Diabetes. https://doi.org/10.2337/diab.40.2.s131
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.