CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementMaternal and Neonatal HealthcareDiabetes Management and Research

Gestational diabetes in Germany: Development of screening participation and prevalence

Open access
Reitzle, Lukas, Schmidt, Christian, Heidemann, Christin, Icks, Andrea, Kaltheuner, Matthias, Ziese, Thomas, Scheidt-Nave, Christa·2021·Robert Koch-Institut
DOI 10.25646/8325PMC PMC8734204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an important risk factor for pregnancy complications. Since 2012, the Federal Joint Committee’s maternity directive recommends a two-step screening for GDM with a pre-test and subsequent diagnostic test if the pre-test is positive. This study analyses the implementation and development over time of GDM screening participation and prevalence in Germany. The data basis is the external inpatient obstetrics quality assurance documentation, which covers all births in hospital. Women with diabetes before pregnancy were excluded. The study defined women as GDM cases if the condition was documented in maternity records or if the ICD-10 diagnosis O24.4 was coded for inpatients at discharge and figures were determined for the years 2013 to 2018. As the documentation of screening tests has only been included in the data set since 2016, screening participation for the years 2016 to 2018 were estimated and evaluated based on the pre-test and/or diagnostic tests documented in maternity records. In 2018, the majority of all women who gave birth in hospitals had had a pre-test conducted (65.0%) or a pre-test and diagnostic test (18.2%) in line with the two-step procedure. A further 6.7% received a diagnostic test alone. GDM screening participation increased over time from 83.4% in 2016 to 89.9% in 2018. The prevalence of a documented GDM increased from 4.6% to 6.8% between 2013 and 2018. In 2018, this equates to 51,318 women with GDM. Reliably assessing the extent and causes of this development will require continuous analyses of screening implementation, documentation and changes in maternal risk factors.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.25646/8325

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 Germany, GDM incidence was 5.3% in 2016 and 6.8% in 2018.

    “Reitzle et al. [126] presented data on the GDM incidence from 2016 to 2018, in 2016 was 5.3% and in 2018 was 6.8%.”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [126]

    Results §3.3 reports documented GDM prevalence of 6.8% in 2018. It also reports a 6.8% positive diagnostic-test rate in 2016, 1.5 percentage points above documented GDM prevalence, implying 5.3% for that year. The figures match, but the paper measures prevalence among women giving birth in hospital, not incidence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In Germany, data on GDM incidence from 2016 to 2018 were taken from hospital records, and several percent of German women still had not had GDM screening.

    “Researchers signaled two things: the data were taken from hospital records, and several percent of German women still have not had a GDM screening [126].”

    From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [126]

    The Abstract says the study used inpatient obstetrics quality-assurance documentation covering hospital births, and the Key statements report that 10.1% of women who gave birth in hospital had not been screened in 2018. The claim calls the GDM measure “incidence,” but the paper reports documented prevalence; 2016–2018 is the period given for screening participation, not GDM incidence. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. [1]McIntyre HD Catalano P Zhang C (2019) Gestational diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Dis Primers 5(1): 47 31296866
  2. [2]Fadl HE Ostlund IK Magnuson AF (2010) Maternal and neonatal outcomes and time trends of gestational diabetes mellitus in Sweden from 1991 to 2003. Diabet Med 27(4): 436– 441 20536516
  3. [3]Metzger BE Lowe LP Dyer AR (2008) Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 358(19): 1991– 2002 18463375
  4. [4]Shand AW Bell JC McElduff A (2008) Outcomes of pregnancies in women with pre-gestational diabetes mellitus and gestational diabetes mellitus; a population-based study in New South Wales, Australia, 1998–2002. Diabet Med 25(6): 708– 715 18544109
  5. [5]Rayanagoudar G Hashi AA Zamora J (2016) Quantification of the type 2 diabetes risk in women with gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95,750 women. Diabetologia 59(7): 1403– 1411 27073002 PMC4901120
  6. [6]Kessous R Shoham-Vardi I Pariente G (2013) An association between gestational diabetes mellitus and long-term maternal cardiovascular morbidity. Heart 99(15): 1118– 1121 23749791
  7. [8]Domanski G Lange AE Ittermann T (2018) Evaluation of neonatal and maternal morbidity in mothers with gestational diabetes: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 18(1): 367 30200916 PMC6131836
  8. [9]Huy C Loerbroks A Hornemann A (2012) Prevalence, Trend and Determining Factors of Gestational Diabetes in Germany. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 72(4): 311– 315 25284837 PMC4168370
  9. [10]Tamayo T Tamayo M Rathmann W (2016) Prevalence of gestational diabetes and risk of complications before and after initiation of a general systematic two-step screening strategy in Germany (2012–2014). Diabetes Res Clin Pract 115: 1– 8 27242116
  10. [12]Melchior H Kurch-Bek D Mund M (2017) Prävalenz des Gestationsdiabetes. Dtsch Arztebl International 114(24): 412– 418 PMC5499505 28669379
  11. [13]Zhu Y Zhang C (2016) Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes and Risk of Progression to Type 2 Diabetes: a Global Perspective. Curr Diab Rep 16(1): 7 26742932 PMC6675405
  12. [15]Behboudi-Gandevani S Amiri M Bidhendi Yarandi R (2019) The impact of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes on its prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 11: 11 30733833 PMC6359830
  13. [16]Poston L Caleyachetty R Cnattingius S (2016) Preconceptional and maternal obesity: epidemiology and health consequences. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4(12): 1025– 1036 27743975
  14. [19]Heidemann C Paprott R Schmidt C (2019) Aufbau einer Diabetes-Surveillance in Deutschland – Ergebnisse der ersten Projektphase (2015–2019). Epidemiologisches Bulletin 45: 473– 478. https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/6417 (As at 31.03.2021)
  15. [20]Gabrys L Heidemann C Schmidt C (2018) Selecting and defining indicators for diabetes surveillance in Germany. Journal of Health Monitoring 3(S3): 3– 21. https://edoc.rki.de/handle/176904/5679 (As at 31.03.2021) PMC8852787 35586543
  16. [21]Spix C Blettner M (2012) Screening – Teil 19 der Serie zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen. Dtsch Arztebl International 109(21): 385– 390 PMC3371632 22690254
  17. [23]Wegwarth O Gigerenzer G (2018) The Barrier to Informed Choice in Cancer Screening: Statistical Illiteracy in Physicians and Patients. In: Goerling U Mehnert A (Eds) Psycho-Oncology Recent Results in Cancer Research. Springer International Publishing, Cham, P. 207– 221 28924688
  18. [29]Bühling KJ Stein U Dudenhausen JW (1998) Evaluation des 50 g-Glukose-Screeningtests an 1416 Schwangeren. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 58(02): 100– 109
  19. [30]Festa A Schwarzmaier A Bechter B (2001) Anwendung eines sensitiven Verfahrens zur Diagnose des Gestationsdiabetes. Metabolische und klinische Ergebnisse. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 61(02): 79– 84
  20. [32]Reeske A Zeeb H Razum O (2012) Differences in the Incidence of Gestational Diabetes between Women of Turkish and German Origin: An Analysis of Health Insurance Data From a Statutory Health Insurance in Berlin, Germany (AOK), 2005–2007. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 72(4): 305– 310 25284836 PMC4168342
  21. [33]Reinders P Zoellner Y Schneider U (2020) Real-world evaluation of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus in the German health care system. Prim Care Diabetes 14(6): 633– 638 33032937
  22. [35]Beyerlein A Koller D Ziegler AG (2016) Does charge-free screening improve detection of gestational diabetes in women from deprived areas: a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 16: 266 27613387 PMC5016952
  23. [36]Kleinwechter H Scherbaum WA Schäfer-Graf U (2017) Keine populationsbasierte Erhebung. Dtsch Arztebl International 114(41): 690 PMC5672598 29082862
  24. [37]Weiss C Oppelt P Mayer RB (2019) The participation rate of migrant women in gestational diabetes screening in Austria: a retrospective analysis of 3293 births. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299(2): 345– 351 30460613 PMC6394424
  25. [39]Brown FM Wyckoff J (2017) Application of One-Step IADPSG Versus Two-Step Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes in the Real World: Impact on Health Services, Clinical Care, and Outcomes. Curr Diab Rep 17(10): 85 28799123 PMC5552830
  26. [41]Teede HJ Harrison CL Teh WT (2011) Gestational diabetes: development of an early risk prediction tool to facilitate opportunities for prevention. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 51(6): 499– 504 21951203
  27. [42]Artzi NS Shilo S Hadar E (2020) Prediction of gestational diabetes based on nationwide electronic health records. Nat Med 26(1): 71– 76 31932807

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reitzle, L., Schmidt, C., Heidemann, C., Icks, A., Kaltheuner, M., Ziese, T., & Scheidt-Nave, C.
Affiliations
  • Robert Koch Institute (DE)
  • Deutsches Diabetes-Zentrum e.V. (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Robert Koch-Institut
Publisher
Robert Koch-Institut
Published
2021-06-16
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
3-18
DOI
10.25646/8325
PMC
PMC8734204
OpenAlex
W3182459160
Cited by
23
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Publication server of the Robert Koch Institute (Robert Kock Institute) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Robert-Koch-Institut (RKI) (cc-by)
  • PubMed
Funders
  • Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (GE 2019 03 05, GE20150323)
  • Robert Koch Institut
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Maternal and Neonatal Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
Keywords
gestational diabetes mellitus, GDM screening, two-stage screening, screening uptake, prevalence, pregnancy complications, Germany

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