OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to prospectively evaluate a screening model for gestational diabetes mellitus on the basis of clinical risk indicators. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective multicenter study with 5235 consecutive pregnant women, diagnostic testing with a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test was routinely performed in women with risk indicators and offered to women without risk indicators as part of the study. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of the women underwent testing, 43% declined participation, 6% did not speak Danish, and 7% could not be contacted. By extrapolation of the results from tested women to the whole group in question, a 2.4% prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of the model was 80.6 (73.7-87.6) and 64.8 (63.5-66.1), respectively (95% CIs). CONCLUSION: Under ideal conditions, sensitivity of the model was comparable with universal screening by fasting glucose or a 1-hour 50-g glucose challenge test. Both screening and diagnostic testing could be avoided in two thirds of all pregnant women.
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to prospectively evaluate a screening model for gestational diabetes mellitus on the basis of clinical risk indicators. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective multicenter study with 5235 consecutive pregnant women, diagnostic testing with a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test was routinely performed in women with risk indicators and offered to women without risk indicators as part of the study. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of the women underwent testing, 43% declined participation, 6% did not speak Danish, and 7% could not be contacted. By extrapolation of the results from tested women to the whole group in question, a 2.4% prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity of the model was 80.6 (73.7-87.6) and 64.8 (63.5-66.1), respectively (95% CIs). CONCLUSION: Under ideal conditions, sensitivity of the model was comparable with universal screening by fasting glucose or a 1-hour 50-g glucose challenge test. Both screening and diagnostic testing could be avoided in two thirds of all pregnant women.
Authors: M Ilkin Yeral; A Seval Ozgu-Erdinc; Dilek Uygur; K Doga Seckin; M Fatih Karsli; A Nuri Danisman Journal: Endocrine Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Louise Kelstrup; Peter Damm; Elisabeth R Mathiesen; Torben Hansen; Allan A Vaag; Oluf Pedersen; Tine D Clausen Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Eeva A L Korpi-Hyövälti; David E Laaksonen; Ursula S Schwab; Tarja H Vanhapiha; Kristiina R Vihla; Seppo T Heinonen; Leo K Niskanen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Cuilin Zhang; Frank B Hu; Sjurdur F Olsen; Allan Vaag; Robert Gore-Langton; Jorge E Chavarro; Wei Bao; Edwina Yeung; Katherine Bowers; Louise G Grunnet; Seth Sherman; Michele Kiely; Marin Strøm; Susanne Hansen; Aiyi Liu; James Mills; Ruzong Fan Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Tina Ravnsborg; Lise Lotte T Andersen; Natacha D Trabjerg; Lars M Rasmussen; Dorte M Jensen; Martin Overgaard Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 10.122