4.7 Editorial Material

Diagnosing gestational diabetes: can expert opinions replace scientific evidence?

Journal

DIABETOLOGIA
Volume 54, Issue 9, Pages 2211-2213

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00125-011-2228-z

Keywords

Diagnostic controversy; Diagnostic criteria; Evidence-based medicine; Experts consensus; Gestational diabetes; Macrosomia; Medicalisation; Observational studies; Pregnancy; Preventive medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Preventive medical interventions should be based on the highest level of scientific evidence. Actual criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are neither uniform nor based on pregnancy outcomes. An expert panel from the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups recently proposed that all pregnant women undergo a one-step 75 g OGTT, and defined new lower cut-off points to diagnose GDM (Metzger BE et al. Diabetes Care 33: 676-682). These criteria will double the prevalence of GDM, as 18% of all pregnant women will be labelled as abnormal. A recent article in Diabetologia (Ryan EA 54:480-486) claimed that maternal glucose is a weak predictor of big babies, that a single OGTT is poorly reproducible, and that expected benefits from intervention would be, at best, modest. This Commentary discusses other objections and argues that guidelines on any new GDM diagnostic strategy should be based on the results of randomised controlled trials rather than on disputable expert opinions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available