4.6 Article

The German Gestational Diabetes Study (PREG), a prospective multicentre cohort study: rationale, methodology and design

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058268

关键词

-

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [01GI0925]
  2. Deutsche Diabetes Stiftung [380/02/16]
  3. Deutsche Diabetes Gesellschaft

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even with proper treatment, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can still have a long-term impact on the health of both the mother and the child. The multicentre PREG study aims to characterize the metabolic and phenotypic traits of women with GDM during and after pregnancy, and investigate the effects of maternal hyperglycaemia and treatment on the long-term health of the mother and child.
Introduction Even well-treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) might still have impact on long-term health of the mother and her offspring, although this relationship has not yet been conclusively studied. Using in-depth phenotyping of the mother and her offspring, we aim to elucidate the relationship of maternal hyperglycaemia during pregnancy and adequate treatment, and its impact on the long-term health of both mother and child. Methods The multicentre PREG study, a prospective cohort study, is designed to metabolically and phenotypically characterise women with a 75-g five-point oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) during, and repeatedly after pregnancy. Outcome measures are maternal glycaemia during OGTTs, birth outcome and the health and growth development of the offspring. The children of the study participants are followed up until adulthood with developmental tests and metabolic and epigenetic phenotyping in the PREG Offspring study. A total of 800 women (600 with GDM, 200 controls) will be recruited. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by all local ethics committees. Results will be disseminated via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

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

4.6
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