Chun-Heng Kuo1, Hung-Yuan Li2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, Taipei, Taiwan. larsli@ntuh.gov.tw.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Currently, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) lacks uniformity. Several controversies are still under debate, especially on the method of screening and diagnosis. This review focuses on recent literature and provides current evidence for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. RECENT FINDINGS: Selective screening would miss a significant number of women with GDM. In contrast, universal screening has been shown to be cost-effective, compared with selective screening, and is recommended by many medical societies. For the diagnostic methods for GDM, most observational cohort studies reported that the one-step method is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes and is cost-saving or cost-effective, compared with the two-step method, although these findings should be confirmed in the upcoming randomized controlled trials which compare the performance of one-step and two-step methods. On the other hand, the methods of early screening or diagnosis of GDM are varied, and current evidence does not justify their use during early pregnancy. In conclusion, current evidence favors universal screening for GDM using the one-step method. Early screening for GDM is not favorably supported by the literature.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Currently, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) lacks uniformity. Several controversies are still under debate, especially on the method of screening and diagnosis. This review focuses on recent literature and provides current evidence for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. RECENT FINDINGS: Selective screening would miss a significant number of women with GDM. In contrast, universal screening has been shown to be cost-effective, compared with selective screening, and is recommended by many medical societies. For the diagnostic methods for GDM, most observational cohort studies reported that the one-step method is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes and is cost-saving or cost-effective, compared with the two-step method, although these findings should be confirmed in the upcoming randomized controlled trials which compare the performance of one-step and two-step methods. On the other hand, the methods of early screening or diagnosis of GDM are varied, and current evidence does not justify their use during early pregnancy. In conclusion, current evidence favors universal screening for GDM using the one-step method. Early screening for GDM is not favorably supported by the literature.
Authors: Katrien Benhalima; Paul Van Crombrugge; Carolien Moyson; Johan Verhaeghe; Sofie Vandeginste; Hilde Verlaenen; Chris Vercammen; Toon Maes; Els Dufraimont; Christophe De Block; Yves Jacquemyn; Farah Mekahli; Katrien De Clippel; Annick Van Den Bruel; Anne Loccufier; Annouschka Laenen; Caro Minschart; Roland Devlieger; Chantal Mathieu Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 6.664
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: Janet Trujillo; Alvaro Vigo; Bruce B Duncan; Maicon Falavigna; Eliana M Wendland; Maria A Campos; Maria I Schmidt Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Erika F Werner; Christian M Pettker; Lisa Zuckerwise; Michael Reel; Edmund F Funai; Janice Henderson; Stephen F Thung Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Francesco Corrado; Antonino Di Benedetto; Giacoma Di Vieste; Laura La Fauci; Canio Martinelli; Rosario D'Anna; Basilio Pintaudi Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.964