The approaches used to screen and diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) vary widely. We generated a comparable estimate of the global and regional prevalence of GDM by International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG)'s criteria.Methods: We searched PubMed and other databases and retrieved 57 studies to estimate the prevalence of GDM. Prevalence rate ratios of different diagnostic criteria, screening strategies and age groups, were used to standardize the prevalence of GDM in individual studies included in the analysis. Fixed effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate standardized pooled prevalence of GDM by IDF regions and World Bank country income groups. Results:The pooled global standardized prevalence of GDM was 14.0% (95% confidence interval: 13.97-14.04%). The regional standardized prevalence of GDM were 7.1% (7.0-7.2%) in North America and Caribbean (NAC), 7.8% (7.2-8.4%) in Europe (EUR), 10.4%

BackgroundIncreased antiretroviral therapy uptake in sub-Saharan Africa has resulted in improved survival of the infected. Opportunistic infections are declining as leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Though comprehensive data are lacking, concern has been raised about the rapid emergence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in the African HIV care setting. We therefore set out to characterise the NCD/HIV burden among adults living and ageing with HIV infection in Zimbabwe.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study among patients receiving care in a public sector facility. We reviewed patient records and determined the prevalence of comorbid and multi-morbid NCDs. Associations with patient characteristics were evaluated using univariate and multi-variate logistic regression modelling. Significance testing was done using 2-sided p values and 95 % confidence intervals calculated.ResultsWe recruited 1033 participants. 31 % were men. Significant gender differences included: older median age, more advanced disease at baseline, and greater use of stavudine and protease inhibitor containing regimens in men compared to women. The prevalence of comorbidity and multi-morbidity were, respectively, 15.3 % (95 % CI 13.3–17.7 %) and 4.5 % (95 % CI 3.4–6.0 %). Women had higher rates than men of both co-morbidity and multi-morbidity: 21.8 vs. 14.9 %; p = 0.010 and 5.3 vs. 2.9 %; p = 0.025 respectively. The commonly observed individual NCDs were hypertension [10.2 %; (95 % CI 8.4–12.2 %)], asthma [4.3 % (95 % CI 3.1–5.8 %)], type 2 diabetes mellitus [2.1 % (95 % CI 1.3–3.2 %)], cancer [1.8 % (95 % CI 1.1–2.8 %)], and congestive cardiac failure [1.5 % (95 % CI 0.9–2.5 %)]. After adjusting for confounding, only age categories 45–≤55 years (AOR 2.25; 95 % CI 1.37–3.69) and >55 years (AOR 5.42; 95 % CI 3.17–9.26), and female gender (AOR 2.12; 95 % CI 1.45–3.11) remained significantly and strongly associated with comorbidity risk.ConclusionsWe found a substantial burden of comorbid non-communicable diseases among HIV infected patients in a high HIV and low-income setting. Integrating non-communicable diseases care, including active screening, with HIV care is recommended.

Background and Objectives: In clinical trials, the relative risk or risk ratio (RR) is a mainstay of reporting of the effect magnitude for an intervention. The RR is the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an intervention group to its probability in a control group. Thus, the RR provides a measure of change in the likelihood of an event linked to a given intervention. This measure has been widely used because it is today considered a measure with ''portability'' across varying outcome prevalence, especially when the outcome is rare. It turns out, however, that there is a much more important problem with this ratio, and this paper aims to demonstrate this problem.Methods: We used mathematical derivation to determine if the RR is a measure of effect magnitude alone (i.e., a larger absolute value always indicating a stronger effect) or not. We also used the same derivation to determine its relationship to the prevalence of an outcome. We confirm the derivation results with a follow-up analysis of 140,620 trials scraped from the Cochrane.Results: We demonstrate that the RR varies for reasons other than the magnitude of the effect because it is a ratio of two posterior probabilities, both of which are dependent on baseline prevalence of an outcome. In addition, we demonstrate that the RR shifts toward its null value with increasing outcome prevalence. The shift toward the null happens regardless of the strength of the association between intervention and outcome. The odds ratio (OR), the other commonly used ratio, measures solely the effect magnitude and has no relationship to the prevalence of an outcome in a study nor does it overestimate the RR as is commonly thought.Conclusions: The results demonstrate the need to (1) end the primary use of the RR in clinical trials and meta-analyses as its direct interpretation is not meaningful, (2) replace the RR by the OR, and (3) only use the postintervention risk recalculated from the OR for any expected level of baseline risk in absolute terms for purposes of interpretation such as the number needed to treat. These results will have far-reaching implications such as reducing misleading results from clinical trials and meta-analyses and ushering in a new era in the reporting of such trials or meta-analyses in practice.