BACKGROUND: The best strategy to identify women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review to calculate summary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the 50-g glucose challenge test for GDM. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles that compared the 50-g glucose challenge test with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT, with a 75- or 100-g reference standard) before 32 weeks of gestation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals and summary receiver operating characteristic curves, were calculated using bivariate random-effects models. Two reviewers independently selected articles that compared the 50 g glucose challenge test to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT, 75 or 100 gram, reference standard) before 32 weeks of gestation. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included (13,564 women). Studies that included women with risk factors showed a pooled sensitivity of the 50-g glucose challenge test of 0.74 (95% CI 0.62-0.87), a pooled specificity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.89) (threshold value of 7.8 mmol/l), a derived positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.2 (95% CI 2.0-5.2) and a negative LR of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22-0.53). In studies with consecutive recruitment, the pooled sensitivity was 0.74 (95% CI 0.62-0.87) for a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.91), with a derived positive LR of 4.9 (95% CI 3.5-7.0) and negative LR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.20-0.47). Increasing the threshold for disease (OGTT result) increased the sensitivity of the challenge test, and decreased the specificity. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: The 50-g glucose challenge test is acceptable to screen for GDM, but cannot replace the OGTT. Further possibilities of combining the 50-g glucose challenge test with other screening strategies should be explored.
BACKGROUND: The best strategy to identify women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review to calculate summary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of the 50-g glucose challenge test for GDM. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles that compared the 50-g glucose challenge test with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT, with a 75- or 100-g reference standard) before 32 weeks of gestation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals and summary receiver operating characteristic curves, were calculated using bivariate random-effects models. Two reviewers independently selected articles that compared the 50 g glucose challenge test to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT, 75 or 100 gram, reference standard) before 32 weeks of gestation. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included (13,564 women). Studies that included women with risk factors showed a pooled sensitivity of the 50-g glucose challenge test of 0.74 (95% CI 0.62-0.87), a pooled specificity of 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.89) (threshold value of 7.8 mmol/l), a derived positive likelihood ratio (LR) of 3.2 (95% CI 2.0-5.2) and a negative LR of 0.34 (95% CI 0.22-0.53). In studies with consecutive recruitment, the pooled sensitivity was 0.74 (95% CI 0.62-0.87) for a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.80-0.91), with a derived positive LR of 4.9 (95% CI 3.5-7.0) and negative LR of 0.31 (95% CI 0.20-0.47). Increasing the threshold for disease (OGTT result) increased the sensitivity of the challenge test, and decreased the specificity. AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: The 50-g glucose challenge test is acceptable to screen for GDM, but cannot replace the OGTT. Further possibilities of combining the 50-g glucose challenge test with other screening strategies should be explored.
Authors: L Schober; D Radnai; J Spratte; A Kisielewicz; E Schmitt; K Mahnke; H Fluhr; L Uhlmann; C Sohn; A Steinborn Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 4.330
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: H David McIntyre; Boyd E Metzger; Donald R Coustan; Alan R Dyer; David R Hadden; Moshe Hod; Lynn P Lowe; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Katarzyna Madziarska; Slawomir Zmonarski; Jozef Penar; Magdalena Krajewska; Oktawia Mazanowska; Hanna Augustyniak-Bartosik; Tomasz Gołebiowski; Renata Klak; Waclaw Weyde; Marian Klinger Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2014-12-25 Impact factor: 2.370