Applying current screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus to a European population: is it time for change?
- PMID: 23757431
- PMCID: PMC3781510
- DOI: 10.2337/dc12-2669
Applying current screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus to a European population: is it time for change?
Abstract
Objective: The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were most applicable.
Research design and methods: Between 2007 and 2009, 5,500 women were universally screened for GDM, and a GDM prevalence of 12.4% using International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria was established. We retrospectively applied selective screening guidelines to this cohort.
Results: When we applied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Irish, and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, 54% (2,576), 58% (2,801), and 76% (3,656) of women, respectively, had at least one risk factor for GDM and would have undergone testing. However, when NICE, Irish, and ADA guidelines were applied, 20% (120), 16% (101), and 5% (31) of women, respectively, had no risk factor and would have gone undiagnosed. Using a BMI≥30 kg/m2 for screening has a specificity of 81% with moderate sensitivity at 48%. Reducing the BMI to ≥25 kg/m2 (ADA) increases the sensitivity to 80% with a specificity of 44%. Women with no risk factors diagnosed with GDM on universal screening had more adverse pregnancy outcomes than those with normal glucose tolerance.
Conclusions: This analysis provides a strong argument for universal screening. However, if selective screening were adopted, the ADA guidelines would result in the highest rate of diagnosis and the lowest number of missed cases.
Comment in
-
Gestational diabetes mellitus: to screen or not to screen?: Is this really still a question?Diabetes Care. 2013 Oct;36(10):2877-8. doi: 10.2337/dc13-0833. Diabetes Care. 2013. PMID: 24065839 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus: rationed or rationally related to risk?Diabetes Care. 2013 Oct;36(10):2879-80. doi: 10.2337/dc13-1250. Diabetes Care. 2013. PMID: 24065840 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- World Health Organization. Definition, Diagnosis, and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and its Complications Geneva, World Health Org., 1999 (report)
-
- O’Sullivan EP, Avalos G, O’Reilly M, Dennedy MC, Gaffney G, Dunne F, Atlantic DIP collaborators Atlantic Diabetes in Pregnancy (DIP): the prevalence and outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus using new diagnostic criteria. Diabetologia 2011;54:1670–1675 - PubMed
-
- Nankervis A, McIntyre HD, Moses R, et al. Australasian Diabetes In Pregnancy Society (ADIPS) Consensus Guidelines for the Testing and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Australia [article online]. Available from http://www.adips.org Accessed 10 November 2012
-
- Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Antoniou G, Baghurst P, Robinson JS. Screening for gestational diabetes: the effect of varying blood glucose definitions in the prediction of adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2007;47:307–312 - PubMed
-
- Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, et al. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991–2002 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials
