Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Sep;205(3):253.e1-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.026. Epub 2011 Jun 15.

National Diabetes Data Group vs Carpenter-Coustan criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes

Erica K Berggren  1 , Kim A Boggess, Alison M Stuebe, Michele Jonsson Funk
Affiliations

National Diabetes Data Group vs Carpenter-Coustan criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes

Erica K Berggren et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to compare perinatal outcomes among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes by the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria with women meeting only Carpenter-Coustan criteria.

Study design: This was a 14 year retrospective cohort. Women who screened positive with 1 hour glucose load 140 mg/dL or greater underwent a diagnostic 3 hour oral glucose tolerance test. We report adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) of perinatal outcome risk.

Results: Of the 4659 screen-positive women with diagnostic testing, 1082 (3.3%, of 33,179) met NDDG criteria; 1542 (4.6%, of 33,179), or 460 more, met Carpenter-Coustan criteria. These 460 untreated women had greater risk of preeclampsia than women diagnosed by NDDG criteria (aPR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-2.35). They had a greater risk of cesarean delivery (aPR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30) and infants greater than 4000 g (aPR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.56) than women not meeting either diagnostic criteria.

Conclusion: The 42.5% additional women diagnosed only by Carpenter-Coustan criteria are at greater risk for some adverse outcomes. Cost-effectiveness of a change remains to be determined.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of inclusion and exclusion criteria for three study groups (CC only, NDDG, and negative OGTT) of women eligible for gestational diabetes (GDM) screening
Figure 2
Figure 2
Inset of weeks 38 to 40 to show relationship between gestational age at delivery and birthweight for the three study groups with symbols placed at the median gestational age at delivery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bantle JP, Wylie-Rosett J, Albright AL, et al. Nutrition recommendations and interventions for diabetes: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(Suppl 1):S61–78. - PubMed
    1. Dabelea D, Snell-Bergeon JK, Hartsfield CL, et al. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) over time and by birth cohort: Kaiser Permanente of Colorado GDM Screening Program. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:579–84. - PubMed
    1. Langer O, Yogev Y, Most O, Xenakis EM. Gestational diabetes: the consequences of not treating. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:989–97. - PubMed
    1. Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1991–2002. - PubMed
    1. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, et al. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2477–86. - PubMed

Publication types