The extent of undiagnosed gestational diabetes mellitus in New South Wales

Moses, Robert G.; Colagiuri, Stephen

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1997.tb138756.x

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The link between gestational diabetes and poor maternal and fetal outcomes has been recognised for a long time 3 , 4 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 . The increased risk of hypertension and pre‐eclampsia was a significant finding and is consistent with previous reports 4 , 20 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…The estimated incidence of gestational diabetes for 1996 of 3.6% is very close to the average of 3.3% estimated for New South Wales for 1991 to 1994, 14 despite the different methods used to determine the level of under‐reporting…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Until there is universal screening, the percentage of pregnant women diagnosed as having GDM will underestimate the incidence. Previous reports have suggested that in the early 1990s only 50% or less of pregnant women were screened for GDM 14 . However, the women who are tested are more likely to be in the higher‐risk groups, so the incidence might be lower in the untested, undiagnosed group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gestational diabetes in Victoria in 1996: incidence, risk factors and outcomes

Stone

McLachlan

Halliday

et al. 2002

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Victoria. Study design: Population study of all women having singleton births in Victoria in 1996. Methods: Probabilistic record linkage of routinely collected data and capture–recapture techniques to provide an estimate of the incidence of GDM. Main outcome measures: Risk factors for and the adverse outcomes associated with GDM compared with the non‐diabetic population by univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The estimated incidence of GDM was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.60%–3.64%). GDM is associated with women who are older, Aboriginal, non‐Australian born, or who give birth in a larger hospital. The adverse outcomes associated with GDM pregnancies were hypertension/pre‐eclampsia (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4–1.9), hyaline membrane disease (1.6; 1.2–2.2), neonatal jaundice (1.4; 1.2–1.7) and macrosomia (2.0; 1.8–2.3). Interventions during childbirth were also associated with GDM — for example, induction of labour (3.0; 2.7–3.4) and caesarean section (1.7; 1.6–1.9). Conclusion: Women with GDM had increased rates of hypertension, pre‐eclampsia, induced labour, and interventional delivery. Their offspring had a higher risk of macrosomia, neonatal jaundice and hyaline membrane disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gestational diabetes in Victoria in 1996: incidence, risk factors and outcomes

Stone

McLachlan

Halliday

et al. 2002

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the 1990s in Australia, half of the pregnant women were not screened for GDM during pregnancy despite the recommendation of OGTT screening for all pregnant women [20]. In the last couple of years, the reported compliance ranged from 78% - 92.1% [12-14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surprisingly low compliance to local guidelines for risk factor based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus - A population-based study

Persson

Winkvist

Mogren

2009

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScreening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is routine during pregnancy in many countries in the world. The screening programs are either based on general screening offered to all pregnant women or risk factor based screening stipulated in local clinical guidelines. The aims of this study were to investigate: 1) the compliance with local guidelines of screening for GDM and 2) the outcomes of pregnancy and birth in relation to risk factors of GDM and whether or not exposed to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).MethodsThis study design was a population-based retrospective cross-sectional study of 822 women. A combination of questionnaire data and data collected from medical records was applied. Compliance to the local guidelines of risk factor based screening for GDM was examined and a comparison of outcomes of pregnancy and delivery in relation to risk factor groups for GDM was performed.ResultsOf the 822 participants, 257 (31.3%) women fulfilled at least one criterion for being exposed to screening for GDM according to the local clinical guidelines. However, only 79 (30.7%) of these women were actually exposed to OGTT and of those correctly exposed for screening, seven women were diagnosed with GDM. Women developing risk factors for GDM during pregnancy had a substantially increased risk of giving birth to an infant with macrosomia.ConclusionSurprisingly low compliance with the local clinical guidelines for screening for GDM during pregnancy was found. Furthermore, the prevalence of the risk factors of GDM in our study was almost doubled compared to previous Swedish studies. Pregnant women developing risk factors of GDM during pregnancy were found to be at substantially increased risk of giving birth to an infant with macrosomia. There is a need of actions improving compliance to the local guidelines.

show abstract

“…Some of the young women in the suspected diabetes group who did not have DM had a past history of gestational diabetes. This condition is a recognized risk factor for the development of overt DM [22-24], it should be properly identified in young women in whom transient hyperglycemia is discovered, even retrospectively. In future studies it would be very important to retrieve data and target not only patients with fasting glucose >126 mg/dl, but also patients within the range 110–125 mg/dl.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%