Cited by 32Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsMaternal and Neonatal Healthcare

Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes and Macrosomic Newborns in a Mexican Population

Forsbach, Gerardo, Contreras-Soto, Jesús J, Fong, Gerardo, Flores, Guillermo, Moreno, Obdulia·1988·Diabetes Care

Abstract

Prevalence of gestational diabetes was investigated in 693 pregnant patients between the 24th and 28th wk of gestation. A glucose screening test (GST) was performed with a 50-g glucose load, followed by a blood sample 1 h later. Patients with glucose levels >140 mg/dl 1 h after the GST were scheduled for a full oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). One hundred seven patients had an abnormal GST, and 30 patients (4.3%) were diagnosed as having gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The percentage of GDM increased significantly when glucose levels were >180 mg/dl to a maximum of 84.61% when glucose levels were >200 mg/dl. Also, patient age was directly related to GDM, which increased in incidence to 20% when patients >26 yr had an abnormal GST. After delivery, newborn weights were compared between those born to mothers with GDM (n = 30) and those born to mothers with an abnormal GST (n = 77). Patients with an abnormal GST and normal OGTT had 12 (15.58%) macrosomic and 2 premature newborns. However, patients with GDM had 5 (16.66%) macrosomic and no premature newborns. Patients with a normal GST had 7.33% of the macrosomic newborns. There was no perinatal mortality in newborns of GDM mothers; only 1 of the 5 macrosomic newborns presented transient hypoglycemia. Evaluation of 26 GDM patients was possible after delivery, disclosing 3 (11.53%) with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and 5 (19.23%) with impaired glucose tolerance. These results showed 4.3% undetected GDM in our population and no differences in the proportion of macrosomic newborns between those born to mothers with GDM and those born to mothers with an abnormal GST.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.11.3.235

Cites

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 1988, the first paper reporting the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Mexico estimated it at 4%.

    “However, in 1988, the first paper was published reporting the incidence of GDM—the level estimated was at 4% [55].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Forsbach, G., Contreras-Soto, J. J., Fong, G., Flores, G., & Moreno, O.
Affiliations
Mexican Social Security Institute (MX)
Venue
Diabetes Care
Published
1988-03-01
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
235-238
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
OpenAlex
W1971768062
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, macrosomic newborns, prevalence, oral glucose tolerance test, maternal age, neonatal hypoglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, type 2 diabetes, Mexican population
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Birth Weight, Blood Glucose, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Mexico, Pregnancy, Pregnancy in Diabetics

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