2003
DOI: 10.4158/ep.9.6.504
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cost Analysis of Different Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
6
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…It is well known that lowering the threshold of the OGCT increases sensitivity, at the expense of a slightly lower specificity of the test. By using a lowered threshold of the OGCT, we were able to diagnose an additional 12% of our cases of GDM, similar to findings reported by others [7,35,36], although the prevalence of GDM in their populations ranged from 2 to 6.8%. Thus, the use of a lower threshold does not fully explain such an elevated prevalence.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…It is well known that lowering the threshold of the OGCT increases sensitivity, at the expense of a slightly lower specificity of the test. By using a lowered threshold of the OGCT, we were able to diagnose an additional 12% of our cases of GDM, similar to findings reported by others [7,35,36], although the prevalence of GDM in their populations ranged from 2 to 6.8%. Thus, the use of a lower threshold does not fully explain such an elevated prevalence.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The prevalence was higher than previous studies conducted in Tehran. But the confidence interval of GDM prevalence in this study coincided with other studies [22]. In this study, we demonstrated that women with GDM had a higher BMI and levels of fasting glucose, fasting insulin, C-peptide and HOMA index and lower ISOGGT, as compared with normal women.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…In our study the overall prevalence of GDM was 5.25% and this was inconsonance with other studies done by Vitorattos et al (4.98%), Kumar et al (5.5%) and Larijani et al (4.7%). [20][21][22] In another study done by Bhattacharya et al the prevalence of GDM was 3% which less compared to our study and in another study done by Rajput R et al the prevalence was more compared to our study results and this difference may due the different geographical areas and difference in socio-demographic profile of the subjects. 23,24 In our study, prevalence of GDM increased significantly with increasing age.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 55%