4.3 Article

Prevalence of and risk factors for gestational diabetes using 1999, 2013 WHO and IADPSG criteria upon implementation of a universal one-step screening and diagnostic strategy in a sub-Saharan African population

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.030

Keywords

Gestational diabetes mellitus; Maternal hyperglycaemia; Overt diabetes; Diabetes in pregnancy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To investigate the impact of the new consensus diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of gestational diabetes, evaluate risk factors, and missed opportunities for diagnosis if selective screening strategy was employed. Study design: A prospective observational data of 1059 women with singleton pregnancy screened for gestational diabetes between 24 and 32 weeks gestation in a universal one-step screening and diagnostic strategy using 75-g oral glucose tolerance testing in an obstetric unit in Nigeria. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for GDM. Results: The prevalence of gestational diabetes in accordance with 1999 WHO, new 2013 WHO modified IADPSG and IADPSG criteria was 3.8%, 8.1%, 7.5%, and 8.6%, respectively. Overt diabetes was diagnosed in 1.03% of the study population. Using the new consensus criteria, approximately 20% of GDM cases would have been missed if selective screening strategy was employed. Using multivariable analysis, glycosuria [aOR 8.60 (3.29-22.46)] and previous poor obstetric outcome [aOR 3.01 (1.23-7.37)] were significantly associated with GDM on 1999 WHO criteria. Glycosuria [aOR 2.54 (1.10-6.42)] was the only risk significantly associated with increased risk of developing GDM diagnosed based on new 2013 and IADPSG criteria. Conclusion: Using the new consensus screening and diagnostic guidelines, gestational diabetes is prevalent in our obstetric population. Missed opportunities exist with selective screening approach. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available