F van Hoorn1, Mph Koster2, C A Naaktgeboren3, F Groenendaal4, A Kwee1, M Lamain-de Ruiter1, A Franx1,2, M N Bekker1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Neonatology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1) first-trimester prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) outperform the currently used single risk factor approach, and (2) a first-trimester random venous glucose measurement improves model performance. DESIGN: Prospective population-based multicentre cohort. SETTING: Thirty-one independent midwifery practices and six hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women recruited before 14 weeks of gestation without pre-existing diabetes. METHODS: The single risk factor approach (presence of at least one risk factor: BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , previous macrosomia, history of GDM, positive first-degree family history of diabetes, non-western ethnicity) was compared with the four best performing models in our previously published external validation study (Gabbay-Benziv 2014, Nanda 2011, Teede 2011, van Leeuwen 2010) with and without the addition of glucose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination was assessed by c-statistics, calibration by calibration plots, added value of glucose by the likelihood ratio chi-square test, net benefit by decision curve analysis and reclassification by reclassification plots. RESULTS: Of the 3723 women included, a total of 181 (4.9%) developed GDM. The c-statistics of the prognostic models were higher, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 without glucose and from 0.78 to 0.80 with glucose, compared with the single risk factor approach (0.72). Models showed adequate calibration, and yielded a higher net benefit than the single risk factor approach for most threshold probabilities. Teede 2011 performed best in the reclassification analysis. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for GDM, particularly when glucose was added as a predictor. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for gestational diabetes.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether (1) first-trimester prognostic models for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) outperform the currently used single risk factor approach, and (2) a first-trimester random venous glucose measurement improves model performance. DESIGN: Prospective population-based multicentre cohort. SETTING: Thirty-one independent midwifery practices and six hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women recruited before 14 weeks of gestation without pre-existing diabetes. METHODS: The single risk factor approach (presence of at least one risk factor: BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , previous macrosomia, history of GDM, positive first-degree family history of diabetes, non-western ethnicity) was compared with the four best performing models in our previously published external validation study (Gabbay-Benziv 2014, Nanda 2011, Teede 2011, van Leeuwen 2010) with and without the addition of glucose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discrimination was assessed by c-statistics, calibration by calibration plots, added value of glucose by the likelihood ratio chi-square test, net benefit by decision curve analysis and reclassification by reclassification plots. RESULTS: Of the 3723 women included, a total of 181 (4.9%) developed GDM. The c-statistics of the prognostic models were higher, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 without glucose and from 0.78 to 0.80 with glucose, compared with the single risk factor approach (0.72). Models showed adequate calibration, and yielded a higher net benefit than the single risk factor approach for most threshold probabilities. Teede 2011 performed best in the reclassification analysis. CONCLUSIONS: First-trimester prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for GDM, particularly when glucose was added as a predictor. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prognostic models seem to outperform the currently used single risk factor approach in screening for gestational diabetes.
Authors: Marije Lamain-de Ruiter; Anneke Kwee; Christiana A Naaktgeboren; Inge de Groot; Inge M Evers; Floris Groenendaal; Yolanda R Hering; Anjoke J M Huisjes; Cornel Kirpestein; Wilma M Monincx; Jacqueline E Siljee; Annewil Van 't Zelfde; Charlotte M van Oirschot; Simone A Vankan-Buitelaar; Mariska A A W Vonk; Therese A Wiegers; Joost J Zwart; Arie Franx; Karel G M Moons; Maria P H Koster Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-08-30
Authors: Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth Thom; Marshall W Carpenter; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Margaret Harper; George Saade; Kristine Y Lain; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Arianne N Sweeting; Jencia Wong; Heidi Appelblom; Glynis P Ross; Heikki Kouru; Paul F Williams; Mikko Sairanen; Jon A Hyett Journal: Fetal Diagn Ther Date: 2018-06-13 Impact factor: 2.587
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Diane Farrar; Mark Simmonds; Maria Bryant; Trevor A Sheldon; Derek Tuffnell; Su Golder; Fidelma Dunne; Debbie A Lawlor Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-09-13
Authors: Anja Elaine Sørensen; Mireille N M van Poppel; Gernot Desoye; Peter Damm; David Simmons; Dorte Møller Jensen; Louise Torp Dalgaard Journal: Cells Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: F van Hoorn; Mph Koster; C A Naaktgeboren; F Groenendaal; A Kwee; M Lamain-de Ruiter; A Franx; M N Bekker Journal: BJOG Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 6.531