The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effect of selective screening for gestational diabetes.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the percentage of pregnant women who would not be screened and the percentage of women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) who would possibly remain undiagnosed if the American Diabetes Association's (ADA's) new selective screening recommendations are used rather than universal screening for GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Since 1987, the University of Michigan Health System has performed universal screening for GDM. In 1997, the ADA recommended that women having all four of the following characteristics need not be screened: age < 25 years, not members of an ethnic/racial group with a high prevalence of diabetes, normal body weight, and no family history of diabetes. We studied a random sample of the 25,118 deliveries at the University of Michigan between 1987 and 1997 to determine the prevalence of these four characteristics in our obstetric population. We also studied the prevalence of these four characteristics in 200 women who were diagnosed with GDM in the Endocrine Testing Unit and delivered at the University of Michigan between 1987 and 1997. RESULTS: Approximately 10-11% of women who delivered possessed all four low-risk characteristics and would not have been screened for GDM according to the new ADA recommendations. Only 4% of women (5 of 141) with GDM who delivered and for whom data on all four characteristics were reported possessed all four low-risk characteristics and would not have been screened. CONCLUSIONS: If the new ADA selective screening recommendations are used, few women with GDM will be missed (4%) but approximately 90% of pregnant women will still need to be screened for GDM.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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 the citing paper
“However, some studies suggest that such efforts would miss a substantial number of GDM cases without significantly reducing the cost [13,14,15].”
From The Pathophysiology of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (2018) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“The current criteria for the diagnosis of GDM introduced by The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), which were based on the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) results, found a threefold increase in GDM diagnoses, which suggests an earlier underestimation.”
From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“The HAPO study demonstrated a positive linear relationship between screening glucose values and adverse perinatal outcomes. Moreover, the study authors found that perinatal risks began to increase in women with glucose values that were previously considered “normal” [27,28].”
From Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
The Pathophysiology of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Plows, J. F., Stanley, J. L., Baker, P. N., Reynolds, C. M., & Vickers, M. H. (2018) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms19113342 · Cited by 1,874
Gestational diabetes mellitus: an updated overview
Chiefari, E., Arcidiacono, B., Foti, D., & Brunetti, A. (2017) · Journal of Endocrinological Investigation · doi:10.1007/s40618-016-0607-5 · Cited by 522
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review
Modzelewski, R., Stefanowicz-Rutkowska, M. M., Matuszewski, W., & Bandurska-Stankiewicz, E. M. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm11195736 · Cited by 223
Brown, F. M., & Wyckoff, J. (2017) · Current Diabetes Reports · doi:10.1007/s11892-017-0922-z · Cited by 122
Screening for gestational diabetes in Tuscany, Italy. A population study
Di Cianni, G., Gualdani, E., Berni, C., Meucci, A., Roti, L., Lencioni, C., Lacaria, E., Seghieri, G., & Francesconi, P. (2017) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.003 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, C. B., Iqbal, S., Zawacki, C. M., Yu, D., Brown, M. B., & Herman, W. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Venue
- Diabetes Care
- Publisher
- American Diabetes Association
- Published
- 1999-03-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 418-421
- ISSN
- 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-5548
- OpenAlex
- W1990014250
- Cited by
- 57
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.65
- 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 Management and Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Keywords
- gestational diabetes mellitus, targeted screening, universal screening, American Diabetes Association guidelines, low-risk pregnant women, screening prevalence, risk factors for gestational diabetes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Association, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Risk Factors, United States, Incidence, 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of selective screening for gestational diabetes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2337/diacare.22.3.418
- The paper
- Williams, C. B., Iqbal, S., Zawacki, C. M., Yu, D., Brown, M. B., & Herman, W. H. (1999). Effect of selective screening for gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.22.3.418
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.