Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century

In the paper

“Researchers from Australia showed that after the adoption of the IADPSG standards the incidence of GDM increased from 20 to 75%, but it was also justified by improvements in the potential long-term benefits and perinatal morbidity [17,18,19].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results report higher GDM prevalence under IADPSG criteria, and the Australian studies in Table 2 likewise generally show increases. But Table 2 does not show Australian GDM incidence rising from 20% to 75%; it reports prevalence comparisons, including 17.8% versus 15.0% and 13.0% versus 9.6%. The Introduction discusses benefits of treating GDM, but does not establish that adopting these criteria improved long-term outcomes or perinatal morbidity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [17] Saeedi, 2021, Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] Laafira, 2016, Impact of the new IADPSG gestational diabetes diagnostic criteria on pregnancy outcomes in Western Australia, Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. source
• Disputed

  In the 'Prevalence of GDM With the Application of IADPSG Criteria' section (Table 2; page unavailable), the Western Australia row reports prevalence of 3.4% under regional criteria and 3.5% under IADPSG criteria. That contradicts the attributed increase from 20% to 75%, although the paper reports increases in other settings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [19] Brown, 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. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Even after changing the criteria for a GDM diagnosis in the WHO/IADPSG 2013, the overall prevalence of GDM is still unknown.”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  The Results section estimates overall GDM prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa at 9% (95% CI, 7–12%) and gives a separate estimate of 16% (11–21%) for studies using IADPSG or WHO 2013 criteria. The Background says prevalence in the general population was largely unknown before this review, but the paper does not present it as still unknown after its analysis. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [30] Natamba, B.K., Namara, A.A., and Nyirenda, M.J. (2019). Burden, risk factors and maternal and offspring outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 19. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• Supported

  The Discussion says none of the reviewed studies used the WHO 2013 or IADPSG criteria, and questions whether their prevalence figures reflect the African situation. Although it estimates prevalence at approximately 5% from those studies, it calls for further research to establish reliable continent-wide figures. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites [31] Macaulay, S., Dunger, D.B., and Norris, S.A. (2014). Gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 9. source

In the paper

“In Thailand, an increase in the prevalence of GDM from 22.2% to 32.76% was observed when changing from the C&C criteria to the NDGG criteria.”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  The Results (page unavailable) report 32.0% GDM prevalence with one-step screening versus 10.3% with two-step screening among Thai women, not 22.2% versus 32.76%. The Introduction identifies the compared criteria as IADPSG and ACOG, not C&C and NDGG. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [229] Luewan, 2018, Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “one-Step” and “two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women, Obstet. Gynecol. Int. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The researchers showed that the most valuable screening test in Thailand was the 100 g, two-hour OGTT [229].”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  The Methods describe the 100 g OGTT as part of a two-step approach, with measurements through three hours; the two-hour OGTT uses 75 g. The Discussion questions routine use of the 75 g one-step test in this Thai clinic, but does not identify a 100 g, two-hour OGTT as the most valuable test in Thailand. (LLM, conf=0.89)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [229] Luewan, 2018, Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “one-Step” and “two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women, Obstet. Gynecol. Int. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In 2013 Oman introduced new criteria to detect GDM.”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  The Introduction says Oman adopted its new national GDM protocol in March 2015, not 2013. The protocol was based on the 2013 WHO criteria; 2013 dates the WHO criteria, not their introduction in Oman. No page number is supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [232] Subhi, 2021, Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using the Latest World Health Organization Diagnostic Criteria among Omani Women in Muscat, Oman, Oman. Med. J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“It dropped to 26.4% when applying the new WHO criteria [232].”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  The Results and Discussion state the opposite: GDM incidence was 48.5% under the new WHO criteria and 26.4% under the old criteria. Applying the new criteria increased, rather than decreased, the reported incidence. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [232] Subhi, 2021, Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using the Latest World Health Organization Diagnostic Criteria among Omani Women in Muscat, Oman, Oman. Med. J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In 2012, GDM was assessed at 10.1%.”

What the sources say

• Disputed

  The Methods describe screening in Bahrain from January 2001 to December 2002, not in 2012. The Results report GDM in 13.3% of the screened non-diabetic pregnant women, rather than 10.1%. The supplied copy gives no page numbers for these sections. (LLM, conf=0.89)

  Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

  cites [239] Nagalla, 2005, A population-based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in non-diabetic women in Bahrain, Ann. Saudi Med. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Untreated glucose intolerance increases the risk of maternal and neonatal complications.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The main text (pp. 53–54) reports that elevated early-pregnancy HbA1c was associated with maternal and neonatal complications, including preeclampsia, congenital anomalies, and perinatal death. It does not establish that leaving glucose intolerance untreated increases those risks; the authors note a lack of trial data on the benefits of detecting and treating milder early-pregnancy hyperglycemia. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites [2] McIntyre, 2016, Issues with the Diagnosis and Classification of Hyperglycemia in Early Pregnancy, Diabetes Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Laurie et al. confirmed the almost quadrupled prevalence of GDM between 2010 and 2019 in Australia.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Prevalence section (page unavailable) supports a substantial rise in Australian GDM diagnoses, reporting about 41,000 diagnoses in 2019. It describes a doubling of the number of affected women over the last decade, but does not establish that prevalence nearly quadrupled specifically between 2010 and 2019. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  cites [20] Laurie, J.G., and McIntyre, H.D. (2020). A Review of the Current Status of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Australia-The Clinical Impact of Changing Population Demographics and Diagnostic Criteria on Prevalence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“According to them, the pooled prevalence of GDM in Africa was 13.61% (OR: 95%CI: 10.99–16.23; I2 = 96.1%)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section (‘Prevalence of GDM in Africa’) reports the same pooled prevalence, 95% confidence interval, and I² value. The citing sentence’s ‘OR’ label is not used by the source, which identifies the interval as a 95% CI. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [34] Muche, 2019, Prevalence and determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa based on the updated international diagnostic criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Arch. Public Health source

In the paper

“One thing was obvious: for all of the studies, the GDM prevalence was higher, which was confirmed by Olumodeji et al. [33].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion reports higher GDM prevalence under the 2013 WHO criteria in this rural Nigerian study and in an Ekiti study. It does not confirm a higher prevalence for all African studies: it notes that a study in Jos, Nigeria found no significant difference between the 1999 and 2013 criteria. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites [33] Olumodeji, 2020, Implementing the 2013 WHO diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus in a Rural Nigerian Population, Pan Afr. Med. J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Additionally, their data showed that advanced maternal age was connected with GDM only with high parity [41].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results state that maternal age and parity were not individually associated with GDM, but age over 35 combined with parity of at least five was associated with GDM in the studied Gabonese urban population under WHO 1999 criteria. The Discussion likewise says maternal age became an associated factor only when combined with high parity. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [41] Lendoye, 2022, Prevalence and factors associated to gestational diabetes mellitus among pregnant women in Libreville: A cross-sectional study, Pan Afr. Med. J. source

In the paper

“Other parameters (e.g., HIV infection) were not statistically significant [30].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Table 2 in the Results section reports a pooled risk ratio of 1.14 for HIV status and GDM, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.90–1.43. Because that interval includes 1, the reported association was not statistically significant in the sub-Saharan African studies pooled. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [30] Natamba, B.K., Namara, A.A., and Nyirenda, M.J. (2019). Burden, risk factors and maternal and offspring outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 19. source

In the paper

“Egbe et al., using WHO/AIDPSG 2013, confirmed in their study that the highest prevalence of GDM is in Central Africa-Cameroon (20.4%).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion (Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus; page not provided) reports a high GDM prevalence in the Limbe, Cameroon study, but gives 20.5%, not 20.4%, and says the study used IADPSG criteria rather than a combined WHO/IADPSG 2013 standard. It does not establish that Cameroon had the highest prevalence in Central Africa. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [37] Egbe, 2018, Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a population of pregnant women attending three health facilities in Limbe, Cameroon: A cross-sectional study, Pan Afr. Med. J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The lowest prevalence was in Northern Africa at 7.57% (95% CI: 5.89–9.25)”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract’s Results report that Northern Africa had the lowest estimated gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence among the African subregions, at 7.57% (95% CI: 5.89–9.25). The Discussion also identifies Northern Africa as the lowest-prevalence subregion. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [34] Muche, 2019, Prevalence and determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa based on the updated international diagnostic criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Arch. Public Health source

In the paper

“On the African continent, a few ways diagnosing GDM diagnosis have still exist. The WHO 1985, WHO 1999, WHO 2006, CC criteria, ADA 2003/2004, WHO/IADPSG 2013 or individual protocols are taken into account [30,31].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Table 1 in the Results (page unavailable) lists studies in sub-Saharan African countries using WHO 1985, WHO 1999, WHO 2006, CC, ADA 2003/4, IADPSG, and studies’ own or institutional criteria. The Results also identify WHO/IADPSG 2013 criteria among those used. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [30] Natamba, B.K., Namara, A.A., and Nyirenda, M.J. (2019). Burden, risk factors and maternal and offspring outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 19. source
• Partly supported

  The Results (Study Characteristics, Table 3; page not provided) document African studies using WHO 1985, WHO 1999, Carpenter and Coustan criteria, and an institutional protocol. They do not document use of WHO 2006 or ADA 2003/2004 criteria, and the Discussion (page not provided) explicitly says none of the reviewed studies used WHO 2013 or IADPSG criteria. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites [31] Macaulay, S., Dunger, D.B., and Norris, S.A. (2014). Gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 9. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“These results were connected with an epidemic of obesity caused by incorrect dietary habits and a low level of physical activity.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion (Risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus; page not provided) links the study’s high GDM prevalence to increased BMI and suggests dietary habits contribute to obesity. It also says very few women lived a sedentary lifestyle, so low physical activity does not explain the high BMI and GDM in this study. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [37] Egbe, 2018, Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a population of pregnant women attending three health facilities in Limbe, Cameroon: A cross-sectional study, Pan Afr. Med. J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“and 14.28% (95% CI: 11.39–17.16; I2 = 96.4%) in subSaharan countries.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section, under “Prevalence of GDM in Africa,” reports the sub-Saharan Africa subgroup estimate as 14.28%, with a 95% CI of 11.39–17.16 and I² of 96.4%. Table 2 reports the same figures for sub-Saharan African countries. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [34] Muche, 2019, Prevalence and determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa based on the updated international diagnostic criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Arch. Public Health source

In the paper

“The results showed that using the one-step strategy, GDM was diagnosed in doubled number of women in comparison with the two-step method.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results (Primary Outcomes) report GDM diagnoses in 16.5% of pregnancies randomized to one-step screening versus 8.5% randomized to two-step screening (RR 1.94). The Discussion explicitly describes this as twice as many women being diagnosed with the one-step approach. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [44] Hillier, 2021, A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial of Gestational Diabetes Screening, N. Engl. J. Med. source

In the paper

“The weighted incidence of GDM in North Africa was 13.5% (95% CI: 7.4–20.9, I2 = 98.9%).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results section, “Subregional Specific Pooled GDM Prevalence,” gives the North African estimate as 13.5% (95% CI, 7.4–20.9%; I², 98.9%). It identifies this as weighted prevalence, not incidence; the cited paper therefore supports the figures but not the measure named in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [40] Abdo, 2021, Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in the Middle East and North Africa, 2000–2019: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression, Front. Endocrinol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“They also found positive correlations between hyperglycemia and previous history of GDM and hypertension, weight ≥ 90 kg, and age ≥ 35 years [39].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section reports that previous GDM, known hypertension, pregnancy weight ≥90 kg, and age ≥35 years were all significantly associated with hyperglycemia on multivariate analysis. Table 5 shows odds ratios above 1 for each factor. The claim's “positive correlations” is a reasonable paraphrase of those associations. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [39] Nwali, S.A., Onoh, R.C., Dimejesi, I.B., Obi, V.O., Jombo, S.E., and Edenya, O.O. (2021). Universal versus selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus among antenatal clinic attendees in Abakaliki: Using the one-step 75 gram oral glucose tolerance test. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 21. source

In the paper

“They showed that the GDM prevalence was higher using the WHO 1999 (10.4%) than using the WHO/IADPSG 2013 criteria (4.5%).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion and Abstract Results report a higher GDM prevalence under WHO 1999 criteria than under WHO 2013 criteria. But they give the WHO 1999 figure as 10.2%, not the cited 10.4%; the 4.5% figure matches. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [41] Lendoye, 2022, Prevalence and factors associated to gestational diabetes mellitus among pregnant women in Libreville: A cross-sectional study, Pan Afr. Med. J. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“but if the IADPSG criteria were used the prevalence was approximately 16% in sub-Saharan Africa [30].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section (‘Prevalence of GDM in sub-Saharan Africa’) reports a combined prevalence of 16% (95% CI 11–21%) for studies using IADPSG or WHO 2013 criteria. This supports the citing sentence’s approximate figure, though the subgroup includes both criteria. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [30] Natamba, B.K., Namara, A.A., and Nyirenda, M.J. (2019). Burden, risk factors and maternal and offspring outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 19. source

In the paper

“This prevalence was 32% higher in North African countries with a maternal mortality ratio (MMR) > 100/100,000 live births than in North African countries with an MMR ≤ 100/100,000 live births [40].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section, “Subregional Specific Pooled GDM Prevalence,” states that GDM prevalence in North African countries with an MMR >100 per 100,000 live births was 32.0% higher than in those with an MMR ≤100 per 100,000. This directly matches the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [40] Abdo, 2021, Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in the Middle East and North Africa, 2000–2019: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression, Front. Endocrinol. source

In the paper

“and the highest was in Central Africa at 20.4% (95% CI: 1.55–38.54) [34].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract (Result) states that GDM prevalence was highest in Central Africa at 20.4% (95% CI: 1.55–38.54). The Discussion also identifies Central Africa as the highest-prevalence sub-region. Table 2 gives a slightly different point estimate, 20.04%, with the same confidence interval. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites [34] Muche, 2019, Prevalence and determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa based on the updated international diagnostic criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Arch. Public Health source

In the paper

“GDM is the most frequent endocrinopathy during pregnancy in Canada [63]”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Background (page unavailable) calls GDM “one of the most common endocrinopathies during pregnancy,” supporting the general point. It does not say GDM is the single most frequent endocrinopathy, specifically in Canada. The Results (page unavailable) include Canadian GDM prevalence studies but do not compare GDM with other endocrinopathies there. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [63] Amiri, 2019, The impact of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes on its prevalence: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“A growing trend of GDM prevalence has been observed [56,57,58,59,60,61].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [56] 1993, Experiencia con un programa de escrutinio de diabetes gestacional, Rev. Investig. Clin.
• Not checked yetcites [57] 1997, Incidence of gestational diabetes in a group of women receiving treatment at the Mexican Institute of Social Security in Aguascalientes, Mexico, Arch. Med. Res.
• Not checked yetcites [58] 2005, Gestational diabetes mellitus. Experience at a third level hospital [Diabetes mellitus gestacional. Experiencia en una institución de tercer nivel de atención], Ginecol. Obstet. Mex.
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] 2011, Prediction of alterations in glucose metabolism by glucose and insulin measurements in early pregnancy, Arch. Med. Res. source
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] Parra, 2012, The risk of gestational diabetes mellitus among Mexican women with a history of infertility and polycystic ovary syndrome, Fertil. Steril. source
• ?Could not verify

  The Introduction reports one Mexican GDM prevalence estimate, 12.9%, and says no nationwide prevalence has been reported. The Results describe a case-control sample, not prevalence over time. Searches for an increasing prevalence or temporal trend found no passage establishing that GDM prevalence has grown in Mexico. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  cites [61] Huerta-Chagoya, A., Vázquez-Cárdenas, P., Moreno-Macías, H., Tapia-Maruri, L., Rodríguez-Guillén, R., López-Vite, E., García-Escalante, G., Escobedo-Aguirre, F., Parra-Covarrubias, A., and Cordero-Brieño, R. (2015). Genetic determinants for gestational diabetes mellitus and related metabolic traits in Mexican women. PLoS ONE, 10. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In a study performed among users of the Brazilian Unified Health System (UHS) in the city of Caxias do Sul, State of Rio Grande do Sul, the estimated prevalence of GDM was 5.4%.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion states that 5.4% of pregnant women cared for by the Unified Health System in Caxias do Sul in 2016 had gestational diabetes mellitus. The Materials and Methods section identifies the study population as pregnant UHS users attending prenatal visits in that city. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [80] Madi, 2020, Gestational Diabetes in the Population Served by Brazilian Public Health Care. Prevalence and Risk Factors, Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. source

In the paper

“Nevertheless, there was no disparity between maternal and perinatal outcomes, while more pregnant women were treated for GDM after diagnosis with the one-step method [44].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion reports no significant differences in maternal or perinatal outcomes between the one-step and two-step screening groups. It also states that the one-step approach diagnosed and treated many more women with GDM. The claim is supported when “no disparity” is read as no statistically significant difference, not identical outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites [44] Hillier, 2021, A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial of Gestational Diabetes Screening, N. Engl. J. Med. source

In the paper

“while more pregnant women were treated for GDM after diagnosis with the one-step method [44].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion says the one-step approach resulted in diagnosing and treating many more women for GDM. The Results report GDM diagnoses in 16.5% of pregnancies assigned to one-step screening versus 8.5% assigned to two-step screening. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites [44] Hillier, 2021, A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial of Gestational Diabetes Screening, N. Engl. J. Med. source

In the paper

“Filipina, Pacific Islander/Hawaiian, and other Asian pregnant patients had increased risk of GDM versus white women using a bivariate analysis [52].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section states that Hawaiian/Pacific Islander women, Filipinas, and other Asians all had increased odds of GDM compared with white women in a bivariate analysis. This directly supports the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [52] Tsai, P.J., Roberson, E., and Dye, T. (2013). Gestational diabetes and macrosomia by race/ethnicity in Hawaii. BMC Res. Notes, 6. source

In the paper

“Similar results for GDM prevalence at 10.3% were presented by Leonco et al. in their prospective study performed in French Guiana, an overseas department of France, in South America [79].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion reports GDM prevalence of 10.3% of pregnancies at Cayenne Hospital in French Guiana. The Materials and Methods section identifies the study as prospective. The estimate is from one maternity hospital, not a territory-wide survey. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [79] Leonco, 2021, Does Universal Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Improve Neonatal Outcomes in a Socially Vulnerable Population: A Prospective Study in French Guiana, Front. Endocrinol. source

In the paper

“This increase in the number of GDM cases occurred, due to the fact that only one elevated value is required to make the diagnosis [45].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Research Design and Methods section (p. 1) says the IADPSG criteria diagnose GDM when one or more glucose values meet a threshold. The Results (p. 1) report a 17.8% frequency under those criteria, but the paper does not compare that frequency with a prior method or establish that requiring only one elevated value caused an increase in cases. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  cites [45] Sacks, 2012, Frequency of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus at Collaborating Centers Based on IADPSG Consensus Panel-Recommended Criteria: The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study, Diabetes Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In turn, using the one-step 2-h 75 g OGTT approximately 17.8% of pregnant women would be classified as having GDM, which would almost double the frequency of GDM in the US [4].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Section 4 (Antenatal Glucose Screening) states that under the one-step IADPSG criteria, 17.8% of pregnant patients in the USA would test positive for GDM, nearly doubling its incidence there. The same section identifies the one-step test as a 2-hour test using a 75-g glucose load. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [4] Lende, M., and Rijhsinghani, A. (2020). Gestational Diabetes: Overview with Emphasis on Medical Management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17. source

In the paper

“The data were collected in 4 major cities in Mexico: (Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Merida) in 2017, and an overall predicted GDM prevalence at the level of 23.7% was reported [54].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Materials and methods section says the survey was conducted in Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Merida in June–July 2017. The Results section reports a total predicted GDM clinician-reported proportion of 23.7%. Calling that figure GDM prevalence omits the important qualifier that it was based on clinicians’ reports, not a directly measured population prevalence. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites [54] Dainelli, 2018, Screening and Management of Gestational Diabetes in Mexico: Results from a Survey of Multilocation, Multi-Health Care Institution Practitioners, Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Additionally, pregnant women who were obese, ≥35 years, and those with three or more pregnancies were more likely to develop GDM during pregnancy than women with a normal BMI, <35 years, and primiparous [80].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results report higher unadjusted odds of GDM for women aged ≥35 and women with three or more pregnancies. They also report higher odds for BMI ≥25 versus BMI <25, but do not separately establish the claimed comparison of obese women with normal-BMI women. The Discussion adds that the association with three or more pregnancies lost significance after adjustment. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [80] Madi, 2020, Gestational Diabetes in the Population Served by Brazilian Public Health Care. Prevalence and Risk Factors, Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The study performed by Melero et al. using the IADPSG criteria, analyzed the nutritional intervention, the Mediterranean diet and its influence on GDM, the results showed lower GDM prevalence in the Mediterranean diet group, than in the control group at 14.8% and 25.8%, respectively [108].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Methods (section 2.3) state that GDM screening used IADPSG criteria. The Results (section 3) report GDM rates of 14.8% in the Mediterranean-diet intervention group and 25.8% in the control group. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [108] Melero, V., García de la Torre, N., Assaf-Balut, C., Jiménez, I., Del Valle, L., Durán, A., Bordiú, E., Valerio, J.J., Herraiz, M.A., and Izquierdo, N. (2020). Effect of a Mediterranean Diet-Based Nutritional Intervention on the Risk of Developing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Other Maternal-Fetal Adverse Events in Hispanic Women Residents in Spain. Nutrients, 12. source

In the paper

“The national prevalence in Trinidad and Tobago was estimated at 14.5% using the IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria [97].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion mentions a national prevalence of 14.5% alongside its GDM findings, but later identifies 14.5% as an International Diabetes Federation estimate for diabetes mellitus, not a national GDM estimate. The Methodology refers to WHO criteria for the study’s local GDM diagnoses; it does not say the 14.5% estimate used IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [97] Khan, 2020, Prevalence rates of impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes mellitus amongst expectant mothers and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus in walk-in patients at health centres in North Central Trinidad, J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“A study performed by Cichocka and Gumprecht found that more pregnant women were diagnosed with GDM based on the fasting glucose level [102].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Conclusions state that, in this Polish study, GDM was diagnosed significantly more often based on fasting glucose in the 2017–2018 group than in the 2015–2016 group. The Discussion likewise says it is now more often diagnosed based on abnormal fasting glucose levels. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [102] Cichocka, E., and Gumprecht, J. (2022). Does the Change in the Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes in Poland Affect Maternal and Fetal Complications? A Prospective Study. Medicina, 58. source

In the paper

“Additionally, researchers found that mid-pregnancy obesity, and family history of diabetes, had increased odds ratios of GDM [94].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section (page not specified) reports increased adjusted odds of GDM for both mid-pregnancy obesity (OR 1.64) and family history of diabetes (OR 1.51) among pregnant women in Lima, Peru. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [94] Larrabure-Torrealva, G.T., Martinez, S., Luque-Fernandez, M.A., Sanchez, S.E., Mascaro, P.A., Ingar, H., Castillo, W., Zumaeta, R., Grande, M., and Motta, V. (2018). Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus: Findings from a universal screening feasibility program in Lima, Peru. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 18. source

In the paper

“They probably adopted the WHO/IADPSG criteria with regional modifications to diagnose GDM [78,96].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Background section, “Criteria for GDM diagnosis in South and Central America and Europe” (page unavailable), says some Latin American countries adopted IADPSG criteria and many incorporated local modifications. It does not identify Paraguay, Suriname, Bolivia, or Venezuela as countries that did so; the countries it names are different. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  cites [78] Bhavadharini, 2016, Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus—Relevance to low and middle income countries, Clin. Diabetes Endocrinol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
• ?Could not verify

  The Discussion says the WHO adopted the IADPSG criteria and that diagnostic practices vary across countries. The Materials and Methods describe their use in a Uruguayan study, but neither passage addresses whether Paraguay, Suriname, Bolivia, or Venezuela adopted the criteria with regional modifications. Searches for those countries and for regional diagnostic modifications found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.77)

  cites [96] Pereda, 2020, Excessive Maternal Weight and Diabetes Are Risk Factors for Macrosomia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 42,663 Pregnancies in Uruguay, Front. Endocrinol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“According to a meta-analysis prepared by Paulo et al., the overall weighted prevalence of GDM from 24 European countries was 10.9%.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract’s Results state that the overall weighted GDM prevalence across 24 European countries was 10.9%. This directly matches the claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [99] Paulo, 2021, Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies, Front. Endocrinol. source

In the paper

“The GDM prevalence was estimated at 22% using only fasting glucose level ≥ 5.3 mmol/L (≥92 mg/dL).”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (Table 1) report gestational diabetes in 22% of the Uruguayan cohort, and Materials and Methods say it was classified using fasting glucose alone because 2-hour OGTT data were unavailable. But the paper specifies a threshold of ≥92 mg/dL, approximately 5.1 mmol/L—not ≥5.3 mmol/L. The citing sentence therefore gives an incorrect mmol/L threshold. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites [96] Pereda, 2020, Excessive Maternal Weight and Diabetes Are Risk Factors for Macrosomia: A Cross-Sectional Study of 42,663 Pregnancies in Uruguay, Front. Endocrinol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“López-de-Andrés et al. in a population-based study performed between 2009 and 2015 using the DDG criteria assessed GDM at 5.27% [106].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results report 130,980 gestational-diabetes deliveries among 2,481,479 deliveries in Spain during 2009–2015, approximately 5.28%, close to the claimed 5.27%. But Materials and Methods (§2.1; page unavailable) says the study classified cases using ICD-9-CM discharge codes and describes Spanish screening recommendations; it does not say the study used DDG criteria. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [106] López-de-Andrés, A., Perez-Farinos, N., Hernández-Barrera, V., Palomar-Gallego, M.A., Carabantes-Alarcón, D., Zamorano-León, J.J., de Miguel-Diez, J., and Jimenez-Garcia, R. (2020). A Population-Based Study of Diabetes During Pregnancy in Spain (2009-2015): Trends in Incidence, Obstetric Interventions, and Pregnancy Outcomes. J. Clin. Med., 9. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The results presented a 16% GDM prevalence among pregnant women.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Abstract Results report that approximately 16% of pregnant women were diagnosed with GDM, and the Abstract Methods identify a sample of 1,300 women in Lima assessed using IADPSG criteria. The Methods describe the study as cross-sectional, not prospective, and do not identify the diagnostic criteria as WHO criteria. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites [94] Larrabure-Torrealva, G.T., Martinez, S., Luque-Fernandez, M.A., Sanchez, S.E., Mascaro, P.A., Ingar, H., Castillo, W., Zumaeta, R., Grande, M., and Motta, V. (2018). Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus: Findings from a universal screening feasibility program in Lima, Peru. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 18. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Similar results were presented by Kotzaeridi et al., with an incidence of GDM at 17.8% [136].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Methods describe a pregnancy cohort at the Medical University of Vienna with 1,087 eligible participants. Table 1 in the Results lists 67, 83, and 44 participants in the three GDM groups—194 of 1,087, or 17.8%. This is the proportion in the Vienna cohort, not a nationwide Austrian incidence estimate; the claim does not explicitly call it nationwide. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites [136] Kotzaeridi, 2021, Characteristics of gestational diabetes subtypes classified by oral glucose tolerance test values, Eur. J. Clin. Investig. source

In the paper

“According to study performed by Costa et al., the authors also presented the increase of GDM incidence between two- and one-step screening from 3.4% to 16.28% [143].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract Results report GDM prevalence rising from 3.4% in group A to 16.28% in group B. The Abstract Methods identify these as the two-step and IADPSG one-step screening groups at a Belgian hospital. The paper calls the measure prevalence rather than incidence, but the attributed comparison and figures match. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites [143] Costa, E., Kirckpartick, C., Gerday, C., De Kempeneer, A., Derisbourg, S., Vercoutere, A., Haumont, S., Pintiaux, A., and Daelemans, C. (2019). Change in prevalence of gestational diabetes and obstetric complications when applying IADPSG screening criteria in a Belgian French speaking University Hospital. A retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 19. source

In the paper

“The GDM prevalence, as assessed by Varela et al., was 14.5% [127].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Findings section reports a GDM prevalence of 14.5% in Varela et al.’s sample of pregnant women in Greece. This is a cohort estimate, not a national prevalence estimate. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [127] Varela, 2017, Association between gestational diabetes and perinatal depressive symptoms: Evidence from a Greek cohort study, Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. source

In the paper

“In a study performed by researchers from Linz, GDM prevalence was assessed at 16.8% using the new criteria for GDM diagnosis [134].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results (Groups) state that 16.8% of mothers in the study met the definition of GDM, including 6.7% with pathological OGTT results who received no further care. The Introduction describes the diagnostic thresholds used under current guidelines, supporting the reference to newer criteria. The figure applies to the study group, not to Austria as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites [134] Weiss, 2019, The participation rate of migrant women in gestational diabetes screening in Austria: A retrospective analysis of 3293 births, Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. source

In the paper

“The results showed a statistically significant increase in the GDM prevalence rate from 9.0% in 2019 to 13.5% in 2020 [119].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results report significantly higher GDM prevalence in the 2020 study group than in the 2019 control group: 13.5% versus 9.0% (p = 0.01). The Materials and Methods locate the study in Northeast Italy; these are rates for that study cohort, not national estimates. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites [119] Zanardo, 2022, COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. source

In the paper

“There was a 45% increase in the number of diagnosed cases (32% in the AIDPSG/WHO 2013 group, and 22% in the WHO 1999 group) [146].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results section reports that applying WHO 2013 criteria rather than WHO 1999 criteria would increase GDM diagnoses by 45% (32% versus 22%) among women at higher risk of GDM. The Methods locate the study in the north of the Netherlands. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [146] Koning, 2018, New diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus and their impact on the number of diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes, Diabetologia source

In the paper

“Similar outcomes were assessed by Bogdanet et al., in their study GDM prevalence was 11.4% [161].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results report that 230 of 2,017 remaining participants were diagnosed with GDM, giving a prevalence of 11.4% in this Irish study cohort. This supports the prevalence attributed to Bogdanet et al. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [161] Bogdanet, 2022, The utility of first trimester plasma glycated CD59 (pGCD59) in predicting gestational diabetes mellitus: A prospective study of non-diabetic pregnant women in Ireland, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. source

In the paper

“A similar result—at 6.77% was estimated by Martine-Edith et al. in Born in Bradford (BiB) cohort study using modified WHO 1999 criteria, according to local recommendations at the time of the study (2007–2010): fasting glucose level ≥ 6.1 mmol/L (≥110 mg/dL) and 2 h post-load glucose level ≥ 7.8 mmol/L (≥140 mg/dL) [156].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  Methods (Screening and diagnosis of GDM; page unavailable) confirms that the BiB study used modified 1999 WHO criteria with the stated glucose thresholds, and the Participants section gives recruitment as 2007–2010. Results reports 844 women diagnosed with GDM, but our copy does not report a 6.77% prevalence or provide a denominator that verifies it. The paper specifies that either glucose threshold could meet the diagnostic criterion. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites [156] Johnson, 2021, Associations between maternal characteristics and pharmaceutical treatment of gestational diabetes: An analysis of the UK Born in Bradford (BiB) cohort study, BMJ Open sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“For the last 20 years, three ways to diagnose GDM (i.e., the WHO 1999; the AIDPSG/WHO 2013 and the Norwegian guidelines) were used.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Background says the 1999 WHO criteria were used in Norway until 2017, and the Methods say the study applied the 1999 WHO, 2013 WHO, and 2017 Norwegian criteria. But the Methods specify that diagnoses during data collection used the 1999 WHO criteria; the other two were applied for this study. The paper therefore does not support saying that all three were used to diagnose GDM in Norway over the last 20 years. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites [176] Rai, A.S., Sletner, L., Jenum, A.K., Øverby, N.C., Stafne, S.N., Lekva, T., Pripp, A.H., and Sagedal, L.R. (2021). Identifying women with gestational diabetes based on maternal characteristics: An analysis of four Norwegian prospective studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 21. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“A similar result in the GDM incidence was presented by Tryggvadottir et al., at 14.9% [170].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results report that 14.9% (127 of 853) of women in the Icelandic study cohort received a GDM diagnosis. The paper calls this the prevalence of diagnoses, rather than a national incidence estimate. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites [170] Tryggvadottir, 2021, Early pregnancy plasma fatty acid profiles of women later diagnosed with gestational diabetes, BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care source

In the paper

“There is a lack of systematically synthesized and integrated data on the GDM incidence in Norway [175].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Abstract states that integrated, systematically synthesized knowledge about GDM prevalence in Norway was lacking. The citing sentence substitutes incidence for prevalence; the paper’s stated gap does not establish a lack of synthesized incidence data. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites [175] Behboudi-Gandevani, S., Parajuli, R., and Vaismoradi, M. (2021). A Systematic Review of the Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes in Norway. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“According to this study, hypertension, gestational hypertension, history of fetal macrosomia, GDM in previous pregnancies, maternal age, and weight gain during pregnancy were significantly correlated with GDM [166].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results report significant differences between the GDM and non-GDM groups for maternal age, fetal macrosomia, high blood pressure before pregnancy, gestational high blood pressure, and pregnancy weight gain. They describe prior GDM as differing at the limit of statistical significance (p = 0.05); the paper's Abstract > Results includes it among the statistically significant differences. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites [166] Preda, 2022, Analysis of Risk Factors for the Development of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in a Group of Romanian Patients, J. Diabetes Res. source

In the paper

“In a single center cohort study from Utrecht de Wit et al. confirmed an increase in GDM prevalence using the IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria compared to the WHO 1999 strategy, at 32.4% vs. 19.3% [149].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Research methods section identifies a single-center cohort tested at University Medical Center Utrecht. The Results section reports GDM diagnoses of 32.4% under the retrospectively applied WHO 2013 criteria versus 19.3% under WHO 1999. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [149] Zijlmans, 2021, Estimated impact of introduction of new diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus, World J. Diabetes source

In the paper

“Using this three ways, Rai et al. assessed GDM prevalence at 10.3% (WHO 1999); 10.7% (Norwegian); and 16.9% (IADPSG/WHO2013) [176].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion reports 16.9% under the 2013 WHO criteria, as claimed. It assigns 10.7% to the 1999 WHO criteria and 10.3% to the 2017 Norwegian criteria; the citing sentence reverses those two figures. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [176] Rai, A.S., Sletner, L., Jenum, A.K., Øverby, N.C., Stafne, S.N., Lekva, T., Pripp, A.H., and Sagedal, L.R. (2021). Identifying women with gestational diabetes based on maternal characteristics: An analysis of four Norwegian prospective studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 21. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“A population- based cohort study from Sweden, performed between 1998 and 2012, assessed GDM prevalence for 1%.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Methods describe a population-based cohort study in Sweden covering births between 1998 and 2012. The Results report that 14,833 of 1,294,006 women in the study cohort were diagnosed with GDM, a proportion reported as 1%. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [179] Hanson, 2019, Gestational diabetes and adiposity are independent risk factors for perinatal outcomes: A population based cohort study in Sweden, Diabet. Med. source

In the paper

“Cuschieri et al. decided to perform universal screening in their study, and GDM was diagnosed in 136 cases (33.9%) using the OGTT according to the IADPSG criteria [201].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  Materials and Methods reports that 136 of 401 women (33.9%) had GDM confirmed by OGTT under IADPSG criteria. It says all women attending a first antenatal visit were invited, but only about 10% of the obstetric population underwent OGTT; the Discussion describes the participants as a convenience sample with possible selection bias. Calling the study universal screening therefore overstates what was performed. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  cites [201] Cuschieri, 2016, The Role of Untimed Blood Glucose in Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in a High Prevalent Diabetic Population, Scientifica sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The latest data on the prevalence of GDM from Bosnia and Herzegovina are dated for the years 2010–2011. A total of 285 pregnant women with singleton pregnancies participated in the study. They underwent a 75 g OGTT between 22 and 32 weeks of gestation. The incidence of GDM was assessed at 10.9% according to the WHO 1999 criteria.”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Methods and Results report a 2010–2011 study of 285 women with singleton pregnancies who underwent a 75 g OGTT at 22–32 weeks; 31 (10.9%) had GDM under WHO criteria. The paper calls 10.9% a prevalence estimate, not an incidence estimate. It also describes the study as taking place in southern Bosnia and Herzegovina, rather than across the country. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites [194] Tomic, 2016, Prevalence of gestational diabetes in the southern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mater. Sociomed. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The only article, that presented the GDM prevalence in Macedonia/Northern Macedonia assessed the incidence at 66.1% [193].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results report that 78 of 118 women (66.1%) screened in Skopje had GDM. But the Subjects and Methods describe a single-hospital sample, and the Discussion says it was enriched for women with GDM risk factors; the figure is not established as national prevalence or incidence. The paper also does not establish that it was the only article reporting GDM prevalence in Macedonia/Northern Macedonia. (LLM, conf=0.89)

  cites [193] Brankica, 2016, Maternal 75-g OGTT glucose levels as predictive factors for large-for-gestational age newborns in women with gestational diabetes mellitus, Arch. Endocrinol. Metab. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“A lower GDM incidence (19.5%) was presented by Milovanovic et al. in their study assessing usefulness of thyroid screening in GDM prediction [191].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results report that 45 of 230 pregnant women (19.5%) met the criteria for GDM. Materials and Methods places the study in Belgrade, and the Discussion says all participants were from Serbia. The figure describes this study cohort, not a nationwide incidence estimate. (LLM, conf=0.92)

  cites [191] Milovanović, Z., Filimonović, D., Soldatović, I., and Karadžov Orlić, N. (2022). Can Thyroid Screening in the First Trimester Improve the Prediction of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus?. J. Clin. Med., 11. source

In the paper

“Another study showed results from between November 2013 and March 2015, the GDM prevalence was estimated at 28.1% [197].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Study population section (page unavailable) reports that 60 of 213 women recruited in Estonia between November 2013 and March 2015 had GDM—approximately 28.2%, close to the cited 28.1%. But every participant belonged to a GDM risk group, so this is not an estimate of GDM prevalence among pregnant women in Estonia generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

  cites [197] Tagoma, 2022, Plasma cytokines during pregnancy provide insight into the risk of diabetes in the gestational diabetes risk group, J. Diabetes Investig. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“After adopting the IADPSG criteria to diagnose GDM, the total prevalence of the disease was 31.2% [218].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Results (Table 1; page not provided) report 31.2% GDM prevalence under IADPSG criteria among 795 pregnant women at two Sri Lankan hospitals. The paper does not report prevalence after Sri Lanka adopted those criteria nationwide; the Discussion says further studies are needed before changing current guidelines. (LLM, conf=0.87)

  cites [218] Dias, 2018, Comparing Different Diagnostic Guidelines for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Relation to Birthweight in Sri Lankan Women, Front. Endocrinol. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The overall prevalence of GDM in Bangladesh was 35% (95/272) [216].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Results (section 3.1, page not provided) state that the overall weighted prevalence of GDM in Bangladesh was 35% (95/272). The paper identifies its data as coming from the 2017–2018 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [216] Mazumder, T., Akter, E., Rahman, S.M., and Islam, M.T. (2022). Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Bangladesh: Findings from Demographic Health Survey 2017-2018. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 23. source

In the paper

“Recently there has still been a lack of consensus regarding the use of diagnostic criteria for GDM in Southeast Asia.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Discussion explicitly identifies a lack of consensus on GDM diagnostic criteria and calls for a standardized approach to comparing GDM burdens among Southeast Asian countries. The Conclusions likewise notes that differing diagnostic guidelines make prevalence difficult to compare across the region. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [228] Kunasegaran, T., Balasubramaniam, V.R.M.T., Arasoo, V.J.T., Palanisamy, U.D., and Ramadas, A. (2021). Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Southeast Asia: A Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18. source

In the paper

“The incidence rates of GDM diagnosed with the NDDG1979 and WHO 1985 guidelines were significantly less than the 7th edition textbook criteria [227].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract’s Results state that GDM incidence under the NDDG 1979 and WHO 1985 guidelines was significantly lower than under the 7th edition textbook criteria (P < 0.001). The Results section’s Table 4 also shows a lower rate for WHO 1985 than for the textbook criteria. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)

  cites [227] He, 2019, Influence of different diagnostic criteria on gestational diabetes mellitus incidence and medical expenditures in China, J. Diabetes Investig. source

In the paper

“Between January and August 2017 Wali et al. conducted a study with the main goal of assessing the prevalence of GDM and 21.8% of pregnant women were diagnosed with GDM [219].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Abstract Methods describe a review of women registered from January 1 to August 31, 2017, supporting the timeframe. The Results report that 21.8% had diabetes in pregnancy, but only 17.8% of screened women had GDM; the claim incorrectly labels the 21.8% figure as GDM. (LLM, conf=0.91)

  cites [219] Wali, 2020, High proportion of overt diabetes mellitus in pregnancy and missed opportunity for early detection of diabetes at a tertiary care centre in Pakistan, Pak. J. Med. Sci. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“It is estimated that the highest GDM prevalence is approximately 49.5%.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The paper’s discussion of GDM diagnosis in early pregnancy (pp. 53–54) does not report a prevalence estimate for Saudi Arabia. Searches for “Saudi Arabia” and “49.5%” found no passage supporting the claimed figure. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  cites [2] McIntyre, 2016, Issues with the Diagnosis and Classification of Hyperglycemia in Early Pregnancy, Diabetes Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“A total of 613 Omani women took part in a study conducted by Subshi et al., which was based on the current diagnostic criteria, and the incidence of GDM was 48.5%.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Methods identify the target population as Omani pregnant women. The Results report that 613 women were included and that GDM incidence under the new diagnostic criteria was 48.5% (297 women). (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [232] Subhi, 2021, Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using the Latest World Health Organization Diagnostic Criteria among Omani Women in Muscat, Oman, Oman. Med. J. source

In the paper

“The incidence of GDM was higher in the 31–35 age group.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The paper’s main section (pp. 53–54) discusses diagnostic thresholds for GDM in early pregnancy, including evidence from Italy and China. A search for Saudi Arabia and the 31–35 age group found no passage reporting GDM incidence by age in Saudi Arabia. (LLM, conf=0.78)

  cites [2] McIntyre, 2016, Issues with the Diagnosis and Classification of Hyperglycemia in Early Pregnancy, Diabetes Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Between 2002 and 2010, there was an increase in GDM detection from 7.2% to 12.5%.”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The Subjects and Methods section describes screening in Bahrain from January 2001 through December 2002, and the Results report a GDM prevalence of 13.3%. Our copy does not report a 2002–2010 trend or detection rates of 7.2% and 12.5% (searched for those figures and the date range). (LLM, conf=0.78)

  cites [239] Nagalla, 2005, A population-based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in non-diabetic women in Bahrain, Ann. Saudi Med. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“The main risk factors are weight and maternal age [239].”

What the sources say

• Partly supported

  The Discussion lists pre-pregnancy weight and age among several risk factors for GDM, so it supports identifying both as risk factors. It does not identify them as the main risk factors in Bahrain; instead, it emphasizes the Bahraini population’s high-risk ethnic status. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  cites [239] Nagalla, 2005, A population-based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in non-diabetic women in Bahrain, Ann. Saudi Med. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“No data exist concerning GDM prevalence [243].”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The background passage reports GDM prevalence in the United Arab Emirates, and the Results report prevalence in the study sample; neither addresses Lebanon. Searches for Lebanon and Lebanese GDM prevalence found no passage stating whether prevalence data exist for Lebanon. (LLM, conf=0.74)

  cites [243] Agarwal, 2010, Gestational diabetes mellitus: Simplifying the international association of diabetes and pregnancy diagnostic algorithm using fasting plasma glucose, Diabetes Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“In the UEA different kind of criteria for diagnosis GDM exist.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Section 7.5 (United Arab Emirates) explicitly says that, without a national guideline, UAE hospitals use various criteria to diagnose GDM. This directly supports the claim. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [242] Agarwal, M.M. (2020). Gestational Diabetes in the Arab Gulf Countries: Sitting on a Land-Mine. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17. source

In the paper

“No data exist concerning GDM prevalence [243].”

What the sources say

• ?Could not verify

  The Abstract’s background passage reports GDM prevalence in the United Arab Emirates, and the Results report prevalence under two diagnostic criteria. Searches for Syria, Syrian, and the claimed absence of prevalence data found no passage addressing whether GDM prevalence data exist for Syria. The absence of a Syria discussion in this paper does not establish that no such data exist. (LLM, conf=0.75)

  cites [243] Agarwal, 2010, Gestational diabetes mellitus: Simplifying the international association of diabetes and pregnancy diagnostic algorithm using fasting plasma glucose, Diabetes Care sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured

In the paper

“Of the 868 mothers with no prior history of diabetes mellitus, 109 reported were given a GDM diagnosis, resulting in 12.6% [234].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  The Abstract Results state that, among 868 mothers with no prior history of diabetes mellitus, 109 (12.6%) reported having been given a GDM diagnosis during their last pregnancy. Results §3.1 confirms the 109/868 figure and identifies the measure as self-reported GDM. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [234] Groof, 2019, Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Fetomaternal Outcomes of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Kuwait: A Cross-Sectional Study, J. Diabetes Res. source

In the paper

“Due to the political situation no recent data concerning GDM prevalence exist [242].”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Section 7.18 (Yemen) says that political strife has limited the available data and that the only GDM study predates the current war and pandemic. This supports the claim that no recent GDM prevalence data are available for Yemen. (LLM, conf=0.93)

  cites [242] Agarwal, M.M. (2020). Gestational Diabetes in the Arab Gulf Countries: Sitting on a Land-Mine. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17. source

In the paper

“The prevalence of GDM in the UAE varies from 7.9 to 37.7%.”

What the sources say

• Supported

  Section 7.5 (United Arab Emirates) states that GDM prevalence in the UAE varies from 7.9% to 37.7%. It specifies that the range depends on the diagnostic criteria used. (LLM, conf=0.95)

  cites [242] Agarwal, M.M. (2020). Gestational Diabetes in the Arab Gulf Countries: Sitting on a Land-Mine. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17. source

In the paper

“Studies on the GDM prevalence and screening methods in Paraguay, Suriname, Bolivia, and Venezuela were not found.”

In the paper

“Studies concerning GDM prevalence and screening in Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Luxembourg, Moldova, Andorra, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not found.”

In the paper

“It is estimated that GDM in Asian countries ranges from 1.2 to 49.5% (Figure 2).”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [205] Amani, 2017, Gestational diabetes prevalence and risk factors among pregnant women—Jazan Region, Saudi Arabia, Diabetol. Prakt.

In the paper

“There is currently not enough research to show which way is the best at diagnosing GDM.”

What the sources say

• Not checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  cites [1] Eknoyan, 2005, A history of diabetes mellitus or how a disease of the kidneys evolved into a kidney disease, Adv. Chronic Kidney Dis. source

In the paper

“which resulted in approximately 14% incidence of GDM in Australia [21].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [21] (2022, July 22). Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s Mothers and Babies Data Visualisations, Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/australias-mothers-babies-visualisations/data.

In the paper

“Additionally, some local drivers such as infections or undernutrition may play a role in the higher risk for GDM development [36].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  cites [36] Nyirenda, 2016, Non-communicable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa: Understanding the drivers of the epidemic to inform intervention strategies, Int. Health source

In the paper

“This lack of uniformity in GDM diagnosis protocols between countries and within countries create problems when comparing the prevalence of GDM on this continent.”

In the paper

“These criteria were adopted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [47] Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics (2018). ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Obstet. Gynecol., 131, e49–e64. source

In the paper

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

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [55] Forsbach, 1988, Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes and Macrosomic Newborns in a Mexican Population, Diabetes Care source

In the paper

“The results showed that the GDM incidence in Argentina using the IADPSG criteria was 2.54 higher (24.9%) than the prevalence according to the ALAD guidelines (9.8%).”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [83] Sucani, 2021, Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Argentina according to the Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD) and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria and the associated maternal-neonatal complications, Health Care Women Int. source

In the paper

“The incidence achieved more than 30% in 2016 [62].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  cites [62] 2017, Enfermedades metabólicas maternas asociadas a sobrepeso y obesidad pregestacional en mujeres mexicanas que cursan con embarazo de alto riesgo, Cirugia. y Cirujanos. source

In the paper

“No differences were found in BMI, maternal age or pregnancy length between pregnant patients diagnosed using the ALAD and IADPSG guidelines.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [83] Sucani, 2021, Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Argentina according to the Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD) and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria and the associated maternal-neonatal complications, Health Care Women Int. source

In the paper

“According to the IDF Diabetes Atlas 2021 the standardized pooled prevalence of GDM in South America and Central America (SACA) was 10.4%.”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Wang, 2022, IDF Diabetes Atlas Committee Hyperglycaemia in Pregnancy Special Interest Group. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Estimation of Global and Regional Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence for 2021 by International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group’s Criteria, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. source

In the paper

“Additionally, it cannot be forgotten the increased number of obese, ethnically diverse, and maternal aged patients, who had a large contribution to the increase in the GDM prevalence [73].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yet

  Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  cites [73] Agarwal, 2015, Gestational diabetes mellitus: An update on the current international diagnostic criteria, World J. Diabetes source

In the paper

“The results showed that one-sixth of GDM cases would have been missed by selective screening [115].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [115] Miailhe, 2015, Selective rather than universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus?, Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. source

In the paper

“The highest prevalence was estimated among women with GDM ≥ 40 years [110,111].”

What the sources say

• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [110] (2022, July 20). (In Portuguese).
• ?Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  cites [111] (2022, July 20). (In Portuguese).

In the paper

“Additionally, an increasing trend in the GDM frequency from 3.81% in 2009 to 6.53% in 2015 was observed [107].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [107] Gortazar, 2019, Trends in prevalence of gestational diabetes and perinatal outcomes in Catalonia, Spain, 2006 to 2015: The Diagestcat Study, Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. source

In the paper

“In a study performed between 2013 and 2017 in Zapatoka, the Santander mixed criteria were used to diagnose GDM, and the prevalence was estimated at 4.46% [91].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [91] 2018, Prevalencia de diabetes gestacional en el Hospital Gestionar Bienestar, Zapatoca, Santander 2013–2017, Med. UIS

In the paper

“Another study estimated the GDM prevalence in Chile at 6.6% among pregnant women [88].”

What the sources say

• Not checked yetcites [88] Huidobro, 2017, Association of ABO blood groups with gestational diabetes mellitus, Rev. Med. Chile

In the paper

“Seventeen studies were analyzed by the IDF to assess the regional standardized GDM prevalence in Europe—7.8% [42].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [42] Wang, 2022, IDF Diabetes Atlas Committee Hyperglycaemia in Pregnancy Special Interest Group. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Estimation of Global and Regional Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence for 2021 by International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group’s Criteria, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. source

In the paper

“These results are similar to data presented by Gortazar from Katalonia—the mean GDM prevalence between 2009 and 2015 was estimated at 4.8% [107].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [107] Gortazar, 2019, Trends in prevalence of gestational diabetes and perinatal outcomes in Catalonia, Spain, 2006 to 2015: The Diagestcat Study, Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. source

In the paper

“The Portuguese Gynecological Society uses the IADPSG criteria for screening and diagnosing GDM [109].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [109] Chaves, 2021, Metformin combined with insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A propensity score-matched study, Acta Diabetol. source

In the paper

“Additionally, the authors presented an almost two-fold increase in the GDM prevalence [83] in comparison to the years: 1995 (5.0%) [84] and 2009 (5.8%) [85].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [83] Sucani, 2021, Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Argentina according to the Latin American Diabetes Association (ALAD) and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria and the associated maternal-neonatal complications, Health Care Women Int. source
• Not checked yetcites [84] Salzberg, 1995, Recomendationes para gestantes con diabetes, Rev. SAD
• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [85] McCarthy, 2010, Universal versus selective screening for the detection, control and prognosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in Argentina, Acta Diabetol. source

In the paper

“Additionally, researchers presented the risk factors for GDM: age, civil status, education, family history of T2DM, personal history of GDM, preeclampsia, hypertension, pre-gestational nutritional status, smoking, and alcohol [87].”

What the sources say

• ?Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [87] Garmendia, 2020, Trends and predictors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Chile, Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. source