AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study was carried out to determine the impact of American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2000 criteria for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the Spanish population. METHODS: Pregnant women were assigned to one of four categories: negative screenees, false-positive screenees, ADA-only-GDM (untreated) and GDM according to National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria (treated). Fetal macrosomia and Caesarean section were defined as primary outcomes, with seven additional secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 9,270 pregnant women screened for GDM, 819 (8.8%) met NDDG criteria. If the threshold for defining GDM had been lowered to ADA criteria, an additional 2.8% of women would have been defined as having the condition (relative increase of 31.8%). Maternal characteristics of women with ADA-only-GDM were between those of false-positive screenees and women with NDDG-GDM. The risk of diabetes-associated complications was slightly elevated in the individuals who would have been classified as abnormal only after the adoption of ADA criteria. In addition, the ADA-only-GDM contribution to morbidity was lower than that of other variables, especially BMI. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Use of the ADA criteria to identify GDM would result in a 31.8% increase in prevalence compared with NDDG criteria. However, as the contribution of these additionally diagnosed cases to adverse GDM outcomes is not substantial, a change in diagnostic criteria is not warranted in our setting.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study was carried out to determine the impact of American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2000 criteria for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the Spanish population. METHODS: Pregnant women were assigned to one of four categories: negative screenees, false-positive screenees, ADA-only-GDM (untreated) and GDM according to National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria (treated). Fetal macrosomia and Caesarean section were defined as primary outcomes, with seven additional secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 9,270 pregnant women screened for GDM, 819 (8.8%) met NDDG criteria. If the threshold for defining GDM had been lowered to ADA criteria, an additional 2.8% of women would have been defined as having the condition (relative increase of 31.8%). Maternal characteristics of women with ADA-only-GDM were between those of false-positive screenees and women with NDDG-GDM. The risk of diabetes-associated complications was slightly elevated in the individuals who would have been classified as abnormal only after the adoption of ADA criteria. In addition, the ADA-only-GDM contribution to morbidity was lower than that of other variables, especially BMI. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Use of the ADA criteria to identify GDM would result in a 31.8% increase in prevalence compared with NDDG criteria. However, as the contribution of these additionally diagnosed cases to adverse GDM outcomes is not substantial, a change in diagnostic criteria is not warranted in our setting.
Authors: Apolonia García-Patterson; Esther Martín; Justa Ubeda; Miguel A María; Juan M Adelantado; Gemma Ginovart; Alberto de Leiva; Rosa Corcoy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Irene González; Miguel A Rubio; Fernando Cordido; Irene Bretón; María J Morales; Nuria Vilarrasa; Susana Monereo; Albert Lecube; Assumptas Caixàs; Irene Vinagre; Albert Goday; Pedro P García-Luna Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: W Ricart; J López; J Mozas; A Pericot; M A Sancho; N González; M Balsells; R Luna; A Cortázar; P Navarro; O Ramírez; B Flández; L F Pallardo; A Hernández-Mijas; J Ampudia; J M Fernández-Real; R Corcoy Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2005-07-29 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: María José Picón; Mora Murri; Araceli Muñoz; José Carlos Fernández-García; Ricardo Gomez-Huelgas; Francisco J Tinahones Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Cristina Moreno-Castilla; Marta Hernandez; Merce Bergua; Maria C Alvarez; Maria A Arce; Karen Rodriguez; Montserrat Martinez-Alonso; Montserrat Iglesias; Magdalena Mateu; Maria D Santos; Linda R Pacheco; Yolanda Blasco; Eva Martin; Nuria Balsells; Nuria Aranda; Didac Mauricio Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 19.112