4.3 Article

Association between glycemic control and birthweight with glycated albumin in Chinese women with gestational diabetes mellitus

期刊

JOURNAL OF DIABETES INVESTIGATION
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 48-55

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdi.12383

关键词

Birthweight; Gestational diabetes; Glycated albumin

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai from the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality, China [12ZR1422200]
  2. Science and Technology Fund Project of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine [11XJ21059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims/Introduction: To assess glycated albumin (GA) as a potential glycemic index in managing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Materials and Methods: Eligible pregnant women were divided into the GDM group with abnormal result on a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and the control (normal) group. GA measurements, Pearson's correlation analysis, multiple logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were obtained at the follow-up examination of participants in the two groups. Results: A total of 2,118 women were assigned to the GDM group (n = 639) and control group (n = 1,479). The mean level of serum GA in GDM group was significantly greater than that in the control group at both 24-28 and 36-38 weeks of gestation (P < 0.05). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for GA defining good glycemic control in GDM was 0.874 (95% confidence interval 0.811-0.938). The cut-off point for the GA levels derived from the receiver operating characteristic curve was 11.60%, which had sensitivity and specificity for detecting a poor glycemic status of 75.93% and 86.36%, respectively. The risk of birthweight >= 3,500 g and macrosomia increased significantly with GA levels >= 13.00% at 24-28 weeks and >= 12.00% at 36-38 weeks of gestation. Conclusions: GA might be an appropriate and conveniently measured index that can detect poor glycemic control and predict birthweights in GDM women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据