BackgroundThe absence of universal gold standards for screening of gestational diabetes (GDM) has led to heterogeneity in the identification of GDM, thereby impacting the accurate estimation of the prevalence of GDM. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different diagnostic criteria for GDM on its prevalence among general populations of pregnant women worldwide, and also to investigate the prevalence of GDM based on various geographic regions.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Google-scholar databases for retrieving articles in English investigating the prevalence of GDM. All populations were classified to seven groups based-on their diagnostic criteria for GDM. Heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results were analyzed using the fixed effect and random-effects inverse variance model for calculating the pooled effect. Publication bias was assessed by Begg’s test. The Meta-prop method was used for the pooled estimation of the prevalence of GDM. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the association between prevalence of GDM and its diagnostic criteria. Modified Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for nonrandomized studies was used for quality assessment of the studies included; the ROBINS and the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tools were used to evaluate the risk of bias.ResultsWe used data from 51 population-based studies, i.e. a study population of 5,349,476 pregnant women. Worldwide, the pooled overall-prevalence of GDM, regardless of type of screening threshold categories was 4.4%, (95% CI 4.3–4.4%). The pooled overall prevalence of GDM in the diagnostic threshold used in IADPSG criteria was 10.6% (95% CI 10.5–10.6%), which was the highest pooled prevalence of GDM among studies included. Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of GDM among studies that used the IADPSG criteria was significantly higher (6–11 fold) than other subgroups. The highest and lowest prevalence of GDM, regardless of screening criteria were reported in East-Asia and Australia (Pooled-P = 11.4%, 95% CI 11.1–11.7%) and (Pooled-P = 3.6%, 95% CI 3.6–3.7%), respectively.ConclusionOver the past quarter century, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes has been changed several times; along with worldwide increasing trend of obesity and diabetes, reducing the threshold of GDM is associated with a significant increase in the incidence of GDM. The harm and benefit of reducing the threshold of diagnostic criteria on pregnancy outcomes, women’s psychological aspects, and health costs should be evaluated precisely.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13098-019-0406-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
A prenatal vitamin D screening and treatment program is an effective approach in detecting deficient women, improving 25(OH)D levels, and decreasing pregnancy adverse outcomes.
Background: A limited number of publications have assessed the prevalence of hypertension (HTN) in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients with inconclusive results. Since in general populations the occurrence of hypertension is related to age per se, we investigated the prevalence (P) / relative risk (RR) of HTN in pooled patients with PCOS, vs control population among reproductive age women with PCOS, compared to menopause/ aging patients. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, web of science, and Google scholar were systematically searched for retrieving observational studies published from inception to April 2019 investigating the HTN in patients with PCOS. The primary outcome of interest was pooled P and RR of HTN in reproductive and menopausal/aging women with PCOS compared to control population. Results: The pooled prevalence of HTN in reproductive and menopausal/aging women with PCOS was higher than in the control population [
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.