2023
DOI: 10.20945/2359-4292-2022-0521
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A portrait of gestational diabetes mellitus in Brazil: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Betine Pinto Moehlecke Iser,
Caroline Stein,
Luisia Feichas Alves
et al.

Abstract: The diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), a transient hyperglycemic state during pregnancy, has varied remarkably over time, resulting in a diversity of prevalence rates. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide estimates of prevalence rates of GDM in Brazil according to different diagnostic criteria. We identified, reviewed, and extracted data from the scientific literature on studies estimating the prevalence of diabetes in pregnant women living in Brazil. The databa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 39 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In comparison to studies conducted in the general Brazilian population using primary data and laboratory measurements with the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria, we observed a higher prevalence of GDM in those with FPLD2 (25% vs . 18.0%) ( 12 ). Non-pregnant Brazilian women have been reported to have a diabetes mellitus prevalence of 8.4% ( 13 ), which is significantly lower than the 87.5% prevalence we documented.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison to studies conducted in the general Brazilian population using primary data and laboratory measurements with the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria, we observed a higher prevalence of GDM in those with FPLD2 (25% vs . 18.0%) ( 12 ). Non-pregnant Brazilian women have been reported to have a diabetes mellitus prevalence of 8.4% ( 13 ), which is significantly lower than the 87.5% prevalence we documented.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%