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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diabetes care 2013-10, Vol.36 (10), p.3040-3044 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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&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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |