The impact of differences in plasma glucose between glucose oxidase and hexokinase methods on estimated gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence

Dickson, Lynnsay M.; Buchmann, Eckhart; Rensburg, Charl Janse van; Norris, Shane A.

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43665-x

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As all pregnant women that underwent anomaly scan US assessment were recruited from a single center, we believe that this constitutes a strength of our work, minimizing bias related to interobserver variation and interequipment variability in the assessment of fetal parameters [ 45 ]. Also, we could avoid interlaboratory discordances in estimating GDM prevalence related to the use of different enzymatic methods [ 46 ]. However, due to its retrospective nature, our work presents the limitations proper of this study design, along with an unequal representation of participants within the MR and LR risk categories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appropriate Timing of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis in Medium- and Low-Risk Women: Effectiveness of the Italian NHS Recommendations in Preventing Fetal Macrosomia

Quaresima

Visconti

Chiefari

et al. 2020

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) earlier than 24-28 weeks of gestation should be considered to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes. Nonetheless, there is uncertainty about which women would benefit most from early screening and which screening strategies should be offered to women with GDM. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) recommendations on selective screening for GDM at 16-18 weeks of gestation are effective in preventing fetal macrosomia in high-risk (HR) women, but the appropriateness of timing and effectiveness of these recommendations in medium- (MR) and low-risk (LR) women are still controversial. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively enrolled 769 consecutive singleton pregnant women who underwent both anomaly scan at 19-21 weeks of gestation and screening for GDM at 16-18 and/or 24-28 weeks of gestation, in agreement with the NHS recommendations and risk stratification criteria. Comparison of maternal characteristics, fetal biometric parameters at anomaly scan (head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), estimated fetal weight (EFW)), and neonatal birth weight (BW) percentile among risk groups was examined. Results. 219 (28.5%) women were diagnosed with GDM, while 550 (71.5%) were normal glucose-tolerant women. Out of 164 HR women, only 62 (37.8%) underwent the recommended early screening for GDM at 16-18 weeks of gestation. AC and EFW percentiles, as well as neonates’ BW percentiles, were significantly higher in HR women diagnosed with GDM at 24-28 weeks of gestation with respect to normal glucose-tolerant women, as well as MR and LR women who tested positive for GDM. Comparative analysis between MR and LR women with GDM and women with normal glucose tolerance revealed significant differences in both AC and EFW percentiles (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in neonatal BW percentiles. Conclusion. In MR and LR women with GDM, a mild acceleration of fetal growth can be detected at the time of anomaly scan. However, in these at-risk categories, the NHS recommendations for screening and treatment of GDM at 24-28 weeks of gestation are still effective in normalizing BW and preventing fetal macrosomia, thus supporting a risk factor-based selective screening program for GDM.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appropriate Timing of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis in Medium- and Low-Risk Women: Effectiveness of the Italian NHS Recommendations in Preventing Fetal Macrosomia

Quaresima

Visconti

Chiefari

et al. 2020

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Glucose hexokinase was reported less often ( n = 19) but may be a better option for blood glucose measurement. A recent paper comparing glucose oxidase and hexokinase used for diagnosis of gestational diabetes reported only 34% of positive diagnosis were common to both methods[ 104 ]. This indicates that there are fundamental differences in the glucose values detected by each measure.…”

Section: Blood Glucose Equipment and Assay Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Potential contributions of the methodology to the variability of glycaemic index of foods

Flavel¹,

Jois²,

Kitchen³

2021

WJD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glycaemic index (GI) testing provides a useful point of comparison between carbohydrate sources. For this comparison to be meaningful, the methods used to determine GI values need to be rigorous and consistent between testing events. This requirement has led to increasing standardization of the GI methodology, with an international standard developed in joint consultation with FAO/WHO (ISO 26642:2010 ) currently the most up to date document. The purpose of this review is to compare the international standard to methods of published studies claiming to have performed a GI test. This analysis revealed that the international standard permits a wide range of choices for researchers when designing a GI testing plan, rather than a single standardized protocol. It has also been revealed that the literature contains significant variation, both between studies and from the international standard for critical aspects of GI testing methodology. The primary areas of variation include; what glucose specification is used, which reference food is used, how much reference food is given, what drink is given during testing, the blood sampling site chosen and what assay and equipment is used to measure blood glucose concentration. For each of these aspects we have explored some of the methodological and physiological implications of these variations. These insights suggest that whilst the international standard has assisted with framing the general parameters of GI testing, further stan-dardization to testing procedures is still required to ensure the continued relevance of the GI to clinical nutrition.

show abstract

“…This study forms part of a larger study concerned with the development of an SA-applicable universal GDM screening programme and GDM lifestyle intervention suitable for use in a low-resource setting. [23,24] The 'Healthy eating and keeping active' Diabetes Conversation Map (DCM), which is an International Diabetes Federation-approved educational instrument, was used both as a conceptual framework and to facilitate semistructured focus group discussions (FGDs). The DCM is a verbal, visual and highly interactive programme designed for delivery to groups of patients.…”

Section: Study Design and Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Women’s accounts of the gestational diabetes experience – a South African perspective

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of differences in plasma glucose between glucose oxidase and hexokinase methods on estimated gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence

Cited by 15 publications

References 27 publications

Appropriate Timing of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis in Medium- and Low-Risk Women: Effectiveness of the Italian NHS Recommendations in Preventing Fetal Macrosomia

Appropriate Timing of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosis in Medium- and Low-Risk Women: Effectiveness of the Italian NHS Recommendations in Preventing Fetal Macrosomia

Potential contributions of the methodology to the variability of glycaemic index of foods

Women’s accounts of the gestational diabetes experience – a South African perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About