Cited by 128Gestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Gestational diabetes mellitus: An update on the current international diagnostic criteria

Open access
Agarwal, Mukesh M·2015·World Journal of Diabetes

Abstract

The approach to screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) around the world is disorderly. The protocols for diagnosis vary not only in-between countries, but also within countries. Furthermore, in any country, this disparity occurs in-between its hospitals and often exists within a single hospital. There are many reasons for these differences. There is the lack of an international consensus among preeminent health organizations (e.g., American College of Gynecologists and World Health Organization). Often there is a disagreement between the country's national diabetes organization, its local health society and its regional obstetric organization with each one recommending a different option for approaching GDM. Sometimes the causes for following an alternate approach are very obvious, e.g., a resource strapped hospital is unable to follow the ivory-tower demanding recommendation of its obstetric organization. But more often than not, the rationale for following or not following a guideline, or following different guideline within the same geographic area is without any perceivable explanation. This review is an attempt to understand the problems afflicting the screening and diagnosis of GDM globally. It traces the major temporal changes in the diagnostic criteria of (1) some respected health organizations; and (2) a few selected countries. With an understanding of the reasons for this disparity, a way forward can be found to reach the ultimate goal: a single global guideline for GDM followed worldwide.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4239/wjd.v6.i6.782

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The increased number of obese, ethnically diverse, and maternal aged patients contributed to the increase in gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence in Canada.

    “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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agarwal, M. M.
Affiliations
United Arab Emirates University (AE)
Corresponding author
Agarwal, Mukesh M
Venue
World Journal of Diabetes
Published
2015
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
782
ISSN
1948-9358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2341867390
Cited by
128
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • World Journal of Diabetes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (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, diagnostic criteria, screening, international consensus, guideline variation, World Health Organization, resource-limited settings

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