Applying Current Screening Tools for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to a European Population: Is It Time for Change?

The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were mo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Diabetes care 2013-10, Vol.36 (10), p.3040-3044
Hauptverfasser: AVALOS, Gloria E, OWENS, Lisa A, DUNNE, Fidelma
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3044
container_issue 10
container_start_page 3040
container_title Diabetes care
container_volume 36
creator AVALOS, Gloria E
OWENS, Lisa A
DUNNE, Fidelma
description The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were most applicable. Between 2007 and 2009, 5,500 women were universally screened for GDM, and a GDM prevalence of 12.4% using International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria was established. We retrospectively applied selective screening guidelines to this cohort. When we applied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Irish, and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, 54% (2,576), 58% (2,801), and 76% (3,656) of women, respectively, had at least one risk factor for GDM and would have undergone testing. However, when NICE, Irish, and ADA guidelines were applied, 20% (120), 16% (101), and 5% (31) of women, respectively, had no risk factor and would have gone undiagnosed. Using a BMI≥30 kg/m2 for screening has a specificity of 81% with moderate sensitivity at 48%. Reducing the BMI to ≥25 kg/m2 (ADA) increases the sensitivity to 80% with a specificity of 44%. Women with no risk factors diagnosed with GDM on universal screening had more adverse pregnancy outcomes than those with normal glucose tolerance. This analysis provides a strong argument for universal screening. However, if selective screening were adopted, the ADA guidelines would result in the highest rate of diagnosis and the lowest number of missed cases.
doi_str_mv 10.2337/dc12-2669
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3781510</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A347520347</galeid><sourcerecordid>A347520347</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c538t-2b1c59fbceaa4a33200e6681670196f047c3397a0a3dbf3718514f2e7f8e7bd53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptklFrFDEQxxdR7Fl98AtIQIT6sDXZbDZJH5TjrPWgouD5HLK5yTVlL1mT3UK_vdnrWVs5AglMfvOfmT9TFK8JPq0o5R_WhlRl1TTySTEjkrKSsVo8LWaY1LJkUlZHxYuUrjHGdS3E8-KoopzxmpJZkeZ93906v0GLMUbwA_ppIoCfIqsQuoRsiOgC0qAHF7zu0GenWxggoW_QdW4YExoC0uh8jKEH7dGP0I_dDj5Dy4SWA1q5LexkFlfab-DTy-KZ1V2CV_v3uPj15Xy1-Fpefr9YLuaXpWFUDGXVEsOkbQ1oXWtKK4yhaQRpOCaysbjmhlLJNdZ03VrKiWCkthVwK4C3a0aPi493uv3YbmFt8nRRd6qPbqvjrQraqcc_3l2pTbhRlAvCCM4CJ3uBGH6P2QO1dcnksbWHMCZF6lyViNxURt_-h16HMWa_dpQkVFQPqY3uQDlvQ65rJlE1pzVnFc53psoD1AY85CaDB-ty-BF_eoDPZw1bZw4mvL9LMDGkFMHee0KwmjZKTRulpo3K7JuHJt6Tf1coA-_2gE5GdzZqb1z6x3EuJJaC_gE0V9FE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1439138268</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Applying Current Screening Tools for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to a European Population: Is It Time for Change?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>AVALOS, Gloria E ; OWENS, Lisa A ; DUNNE, Fidelma</creator><creatorcontrib>AVALOS, Gloria E ; OWENS, Lisa A ; DUNNE, Fidelma ; ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators ; for the ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</creatorcontrib><description>The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were most applicable. Between 2007 and 2009, 5,500 women were universally screened for GDM, and a GDM prevalence of 12.4% using International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria was established. We retrospectively applied selective screening guidelines to this cohort. When we applied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Irish, and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, 54% (2,576), 58% (2,801), and 76% (3,656) of women, respectively, had at least one risk factor for GDM and would have undergone testing. However, when NICE, Irish, and ADA guidelines were applied, 20% (120), 16% (101), and 5% (31) of women, respectively, had no risk factor and would have gone undiagnosed. Using a BMI≥30 kg/m2 for screening has a specificity of 81% with moderate sensitivity at 48%. Reducing the BMI to ≥25 kg/m2 (ADA) increases the sensitivity to 80% with a specificity of 44%. Women with no risk factors diagnosed with GDM on universal screening had more adverse pregnancy outcomes than those with normal glucose tolerance. This analysis provides a strong argument for universal screening. However, if selective screening were adopted, the ADA guidelines would result in the highest rate of diagnosis and the lowest number of missed cases.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0149-5992</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-5548</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2337/dc12-2669</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23757431</identifier><identifier>CODEN: DICAD2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Alexandria, VA: American Diabetes Association</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Body mass index ; Demographic aspects ; Diabetes ; Diabetes in pregnancy ; Diabetes, Gestational - diagnosis ; Diabetes, Gestational - epidemiology ; Diabetes. Impaired glucose tolerance ; Diagnosis ; Endocrine pancreas. Apud cells (diseases) ; Endocrinopathies ; Europe ; Female ; Glucose ; Glucose Intolerance - diagnosis ; Glucose Intolerance - epidemiology ; Humans ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical sciences ; Medical screening ; Metabolic diseases ; Original Research ; Pregnancy ; Prevention and actions ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Risk Factors ; Womens health</subject><ispartof>Diabetes care, 2013-10, Vol.36 (10), p.3040-3044</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 American Diabetes Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Diabetes Association Oct 2013</rights><rights>2013 by the American Diabetes Association. 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c538t-2b1c59fbceaa4a33200e6681670196f047c3397a0a3dbf3718514f2e7f8e7bd53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c538t-2b1c59fbceaa4a33200e6681670196f047c3397a0a3dbf3718514f2e7f8e7bd53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27789098$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23757431$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>AVALOS, Gloria E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OWENS, Lisa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUNNE, Fidelma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</creatorcontrib><title>Applying Current Screening Tools for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to a European Population: Is It Time for Change?</title><title>Diabetes care</title><addtitle>Diabetes Care</addtitle><description>The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were most applicable. Between 2007 and 2009, 5,500 women were universally screened for GDM, and a GDM prevalence of 12.4% using International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria was established. We retrospectively applied selective screening guidelines to this cohort. When we applied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Irish, and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, 54% (2,576), 58% (2,801), and 76% (3,656) of women, respectively, had at least one risk factor for GDM and would have undergone testing. However, when NICE, Irish, and ADA guidelines were applied, 20% (120), 16% (101), and 5% (31) of women, respectively, had no risk factor and would have gone undiagnosed. Using a BMI≥30 kg/m2 for screening has a specificity of 81% with moderate sensitivity at 48%. Reducing the BMI to ≥25 kg/m2 (ADA) increases the sensitivity to 80% with a specificity of 44%. Women with no risk factors diagnosed with GDM on universal screening had more adverse pregnancy outcomes than those with normal glucose tolerance. This analysis provides a strong argument for universal screening. However, if selective screening were adopted, the ADA guidelines would result in the highest rate of diagnosis and the lowest number of missed cases.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>Demographic aspects</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Diabetes in pregnancy</subject><subject>Diabetes, Gestational - diagnosis</subject><subject>Diabetes, Gestational - epidemiology</subject><subject>Diabetes. Impaired glucose tolerance</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Endocrine pancreas. Apud cells (diseases)</subject><subject>Endocrinopathies</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Glucose</subject><subject>Glucose Intolerance - diagnosis</subject><subject>Glucose Intolerance - epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Metabolic diseases</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Prevention and actions</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><issn>0149-5992</issn><issn>1935-5548</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNptklFrFDEQxxdR7Fl98AtIQIT6sDXZbDZJH5TjrPWgouD5HLK5yTVlL1mT3UK_vdnrWVs5AglMfvOfmT9TFK8JPq0o5R_WhlRl1TTySTEjkrKSsVo8LWaY1LJkUlZHxYuUrjHGdS3E8-KoopzxmpJZkeZ93906v0GLMUbwA_ppIoCfIqsQuoRsiOgC0qAHF7zu0GenWxggoW_QdW4YExoC0uh8jKEH7dGP0I_dDj5Dy4SWA1q5LexkFlfab-DTy-KZ1V2CV_v3uPj15Xy1-Fpefr9YLuaXpWFUDGXVEsOkbQ1oXWtKK4yhaQRpOCaysbjmhlLJNdZ03VrKiWCkthVwK4C3a0aPi493uv3YbmFt8nRRd6qPbqvjrQraqcc_3l2pTbhRlAvCCM4CJ3uBGH6P2QO1dcnksbWHMCZF6lyViNxURt_-h16HMWa_dpQkVFQPqY3uQDlvQ65rJlE1pzVnFc53psoD1AY85CaDB-ty-BF_eoDPZw1bZw4mvL9LMDGkFMHee0KwmjZKTRulpo3K7JuHJt6Tf1coA-_2gE5GdzZqb1z6x3EuJJaC_gE0V9FE</recordid><startdate>20131001</startdate><enddate>20131001</enddate><creator>AVALOS, Gloria E</creator><creator>OWENS, Lisa A</creator><creator>DUNNE, Fidelma</creator><general>American Diabetes Association</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131001</creationdate><title>Applying Current Screening Tools for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to a European Population: Is It Time for Change?</title><author>AVALOS, Gloria E ; OWENS, Lisa A ; DUNNE, Fidelma</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c538t-2b1c59fbceaa4a33200e6681670196f047c3397a0a3dbf3718514f2e7f8e7bd53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>Demographic aspects</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Diabetes in pregnancy</topic><topic>Diabetes, Gestational - diagnosis</topic><topic>Diabetes, Gestational - epidemiology</topic><topic>Diabetes. Impaired glucose tolerance</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Endocrine pancreas. Apud cells (diseases)</topic><topic>Endocrinopathies</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Glucose</topic><topic>Glucose Intolerance - diagnosis</topic><topic>Glucose Intolerance - epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Metabolic diseases</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Prevention and actions</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>AVALOS, Gloria E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>OWENS, Lisa A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DUNNE, Fidelma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Diabetes care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>AVALOS, Gloria E</au><au>OWENS, Lisa A</au><au>DUNNE, Fidelma</au><aucorp>ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</aucorp><aucorp>for the ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Applying Current Screening Tools for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to a European Population: Is It Time for Change?</atitle><jtitle>Diabetes care</jtitle><addtitle>Diabetes Care</addtitle><date>2013-10-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>3040</spage><epage>3044</epage><pages>3040-3044</pages><issn>0149-5992</issn><eissn>1935-5548</eissn><coden>DICAD2</coden><abstract>The optimal screening regimen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial. Risk factors used in selective screening guidelines vary. Given that universal screening is not currently adopted in our European population, we aimed to evaluate which selective screening strategies were most applicable. Between 2007 and 2009, 5,500 women were universally screened for GDM, and a GDM prevalence of 12.4% using International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria was established. We retrospectively applied selective screening guidelines to this cohort. When we applied National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), Irish, and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines, 54% (2,576), 58% (2,801), and 76% (3,656) of women, respectively, had at least one risk factor for GDM and would have undergone testing. However, when NICE, Irish, and ADA guidelines were applied, 20% (120), 16% (101), and 5% (31) of women, respectively, had no risk factor and would have gone undiagnosed. Using a BMI≥30 kg/m2 for screening has a specificity of 81% with moderate sensitivity at 48%. Reducing the BMI to ≥25 kg/m2 (ADA) increases the sensitivity to 80% with a specificity of 44%. Women with no risk factors diagnosed with GDM on universal screening had more adverse pregnancy outcomes than those with normal glucose tolerance. This analysis provides a strong argument for universal screening. However, if selective screening were adopted, the ADA guidelines would result in the highest rate of diagnosis and the lowest number of missed cases.</abstract><cop>Alexandria, VA</cop><pub>American Diabetes Association</pub><pmid>23757431</pmid><doi>10.2337/dc12-2669</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0149-5992
ispartof Diabetes care, 2013-10, Vol.36 (10), p.3040-3044
issn 0149-5992
1935-5548
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3781510
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Body mass index
Demographic aspects
Diabetes
Diabetes in pregnancy
Diabetes, Gestational - diagnosis
Diabetes, Gestational - epidemiology
Diabetes. Impaired glucose tolerance
Diagnosis
Endocrine pancreas. Apud cells (diseases)
Endocrinopathies
Europe
Female
Glucose
Glucose Intolerance - diagnosis
Glucose Intolerance - epidemiology
Humans
Mass Screening - methods
Medical sciences
Medical screening
Metabolic diseases
Original Research
Pregnancy
Prevention and actions
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Risk Factors
Womens health
title Applying Current Screening Tools for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus to a European Population: Is It Time for Change?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T18%3A21%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Applying%20Current%20Screening%20Tools%20for%20Gestational%20Diabetes%20Mellitus%20to%20a%20European%20Population:%20Is%20It%20Time%20for%20Change?&rft.jtitle=Diabetes%20care&rft.au=AVALOS,%20Gloria%20E&rft.aucorp=ATLANTIC%20DIP%20Collaborators&rft.date=2013-10-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3040&rft.epage=3044&rft.pages=3040-3044&rft.issn=0149-5992&rft.eissn=1935-5548&rft.coden=DICAD2&rft_id=info:doi/10.2337/dc12-2669&rft_dat=%3Cgale_pubme%3EA347520347%3C/gale_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1439138268&rft_id=info:pmid/23757431&rft_galeid=A347520347&rfr_iscdi=true