4.5 Article

Dietary Quality and Glycemic Control Among Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

期刊

JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 178-184

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2017.6788

关键词

diet; gestational diabetes; glycemic control; nutrition; pregnancy

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [R01 HS019367]
  2. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R18 DK067334, K01DK105106, K01 DK099404, P30 DK092924]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Objective: Poor dietary quality, measured by the Healthy Eating Index 2010 (HEI-2010), is associated with risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and type 2 diabetes. The aim was to investigate the association between dietary quality and glycemic control in women with GDM. Materials and Methods: The study included 1220 women with GDM. Dietary quality was calculated by HEI-2010 score from a Food Frequency Questionnaire administered shortly after GDM diagnosis; higher scores indicate higher dietary quality. Subsequent glycemic control was defined as 80% of all capillary glucose measurements meeting recommended clinical targets below 95mg/dL for fasting, and below 140mg/dL 1-hour glucose after meals. Results: As compared with Quartile 1 of HEI-2010 score, Quartiles 2, 3, and 4 showed increased adjusted odds of overall optimal glycemic control (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.90 [1.34-2.70], 1.77 [1.25-2.52], and 1.55 [1.09-2.20], respectively). Increased odds of glycemic control were observed in Quartiles 2, 3, and 4 as compared with Quartile 1 of HEI-2010 score for 1-hour postbreakfast and 1-hour postdinner. Mean capillary glucose was lower in Quartiles 2, 3, and 4 of HEI-2010 score when compared with Quartile 1 for 1-hour postdinner (p=0.03). Conclusions: Clinicians should be aware that even a small improvement in diet quality may be beneficial for the achievement of improved glycemic control in women with GDM. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01344278.

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

4.5
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