Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effect of selective screening for gestational diabetes.

Williams, C B, Iqbal, S, Zawacki, C M, Yu, D, Brown, M B, Herman, W H·1999·Diabetes Care

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

Crossref · 10.2337/diacare.22.3.418

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

See all 57

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
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.