OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the risk of large for gestational age (LGA) across categories of glucose tolerance. STUDY DESIGN: In a cohort of 89,141 participants, women without gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were categorized by their screening and diagnostic test results; those with GDM were categorized as meeting the National Diabetes Data Group or only the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the risk of LGA; screening values 5.5-6.0 mmol/L comprised the referent. RESULTS: In women without GDM, the odds ratio for LGA was 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.45) for fasting, 1.57 (95% CI, 1.31-1.89) for 1-hour, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.33-1.93) for 2-hour, and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.23-2.14) for 3-hour values meeting the ADA time point-specific thresholds. CONCLUSION: For GDM identified in a 2-step procedure, our findings support the use of isolated abnormal fasting values according to the ADA threshold in identifying women who could benefit from treatment.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the risk of large for gestational age (LGA) across categories of glucose tolerance. STUDY DESIGN: In a cohort of 89,141 participants, women without gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were categorized by their screening and diagnostic test results; those with GDM were categorized as meeting the National Diabetes Data Group or only the American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated the risk of LGA; screening values 5.5-6.0 mmol/L comprised the referent. RESULTS: In women without GDM, the odds ratio for LGA was 1.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-2.45) for fasting, 1.57 (95% CI, 1.31-1.89) for 1-hour, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.33-1.93) for 2-hour, and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.23-2.14) for 3-hour values meeting the ADA time point-specific thresholds. CONCLUSION: For GDM identified in a 2-step procedure, our findings support the use of isolated abnormal fasting values according to the ADA threshold in identifying women who could benefit from treatment.
Authors: Boyd E Metzger; Steven G Gabbe; Bengt Persson; Thomas A Buchanan; Patrick A Catalano; Peter Damm; Alan R Dyer; Alberto de Leiva; Moshe Hod; John L Kitzmiler; Lynn P Lowe; H David McIntyre; Jeremy J N Oats; Yasue Omori; Maria Ines Schmidt Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Heather A Anaya; Fu-Xian Yi; Derek S Boeldt; Jennifer Krupp; Mary A Grummer; Dinesh M Shah; Ian M Bird Journal: Biol Reprod Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 4.285
Authors: S F Ehrlich; M M Hedderson; S D Brown; B Sternfeld; L Chasan-Taber; J Feng; J Adams; J Ching; Y Crites; C P Quesenberry; A Ferrara Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Samantha F Ehrlich; Barbara Sternfeld; Amy E Krefman; Monique M Hedderson; Susan D Brown; Ashley Mevi; Lisa Chasan-Taber; Charles P Quesenberry; Assiamira Ferrara Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2016-06
Authors: Ai Kubo; Assiamira Ferrara; Cecile A Laurent; Gayle C Windham; Louise C Greenspan; Julianna Deardorff; Robert A Hiatt; Charles P Quesenberry; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Samantha F Ehrlich; Lisa G Rosas; Assiamira Ferrara; Janet C King; Barbara Abrams; Kim G Harley; Monique M Hedderson; Brenda Eskenazi Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Deborah J Wexler; Camille E Powe; Linda A Barbour; Thomas Buchanan; Donald R Coustan; Rosa Corcoy; Peter Damm; Fidelma Dunne; Denice S Feig; Assiamira Ferrara; Lorie M Harper; Mark B Landon; Sara J Meltzer; Boyd E Metzger; Hilary Roeder; Janet A Rowan; David A Sacks; David Simmons; Jason G Umans; Patrick M Catalano Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: M M Hedderson; A Ferrara; L A Avalos; S K Van den Eeden; E P Gunderson; D K Li; A Altschuler; S Woo; S Rowell; V Choudhary; F Xu; T Flanagan; C Schaefer; L A Croen Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 3.007