Katherine T Li1, Shilpa Naik2, Mallika Alexander3, Jyoti S Mathad4. 1. Weill Cornell Medical College, 1300 York Ave, New York, NY, 10065, USA. ktl2002@med.cornell.edu. 2. Department of OB-GYN, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 3. Johns Hopkins University Clinical Trials Unit, Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India. 4. Departments of Medicine and OB-GYN, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Although diabetes is rapidly increasing in India, there is no national consensus on best practices for screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The goal of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting the prevalence and screening and diagnostic methods for gestational diabetes in India. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for studies on screening for GDM in India. We included English-language full reports and conference abstracts of cross-sectional studies, prospective, and retrospective cohorts that reported the screening method and prevalence of GDM. We performed descriptive analysis on all studies and meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup meta-analysis on studies with medium or low risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 64 studies reporting 90 prevalence estimates. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0 to 41.9%. Subset meta-analyses showed that the IADPSG diagnostic criteria found significantly more GDM cases (prevalence = 19.19% [15.5, 23.6], p < 0.05) than the WHO 1999 criteria (10.13% [8.17, 12.50]) and DIPSI criteria (7.37% [5.2, 10.16]). Studies that compared the IADPSG and WHO 1999 criteria showed poor positive agreement (33-79%). Studies specifying time of GDM diagnosis showed that patients (11-60%) develop GDM as early as the first trimester, but many GDM cases (16-40%) are missed if screened only at first visit. CONCLUSIONS: In India, prevalence estimates of GDM vary substantially by diagnostic criteria. When evaluating screening and diagnostic criteria for GDM, providers should consider their patients' needs and correlate screening criteria with pregnancy outcomes.
AIMS: Although diabetes is rapidly increasing in India, there is no national consensus on best practices for screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The goal of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting the prevalence and screening and diagnostic methods for gestational diabetes in India. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for studies on screening for GDM in India. We included English-language full reports and conference abstracts of cross-sectional studies, prospective, and retrospective cohorts that reported the screening method and prevalence of GDM. We performed descriptive analysis on all studies and meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup meta-analysis on studies with medium or low risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 64 studies reporting 90 prevalence estimates. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0 to 41.9%. Subset meta-analyses showed that the IADPSG diagnostic criteria found significantly more GDM cases (prevalence = 19.19% [15.5, 23.6], p < 0.05) than the WHO 1999 criteria (10.13% [8.17, 12.50]) and DIPSI criteria (7.37% [5.2, 10.16]). Studies that compared the IADPSG and WHO 1999 criteria showed poor positive agreement (33-79%). Studies specifying time of GDM diagnosis showed that patients (11-60%) develop GDM as early as the first trimester, but many GDM cases (16-40%) are missed if screened only at first visit. CONCLUSIONS: In India, prevalence estimates of GDM vary substantially by diagnostic criteria. When evaluating screening and diagnostic criteria for GDM, providers should consider their patients' needs and correlate screening criteria with pregnancy outcomes.
Authors: V Seshiah; V Balaji; Madhuri S Balaji; A Paneerselvam; T Arthi; M Thamizharasi; Manjula Datta Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2007-02-09 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Liao Li-Zhen; Xu Yun; Zhuang Xiao-Dong; Hong Shu-Bin; Wang Zi-Lian; Dobs Adrian Sandra; Liu Bin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-05-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Tahziba Hussain; Shritam Das; Firdoush Parveen; Prashanti Samanta; Madhusmita Bal; V S Yadav; Sanghamitra Pati Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2020-10-30